Thanks, Paul. I’m chatting with Marika now, and we hope to finalize the 19 JAN agenda today. J. From: "policy@paulmcgrady.com" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:32 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: FW: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) Thanks James. The IPC has its regular call tomorrow, so if there is any way possible to have a draft Jan 19 Council call agenda capturing non-motion items like this, that would be supremely helpful. Otherwise, i'm afraid that many of the topics that end up on the agenda for discussion will be slowed down by "I have to get back to you" wince we won't have another IPC call between now and then. Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Sun, January 08, 2017 10:56 am To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Councilors – Please see the note from Amr (below) and the letter from the “thick WHOIS” IRT (attached), outlining some challenges associated with the implementation of this GNSO Policy and changes to national privacy laws. I propose that we add this topic, and potential next steps, as a discussion item for our next call on 19 JAN. Thank you, J. On 12/17/16, 09:13, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> wrote: Hi, The “thick” WHOIS IRT has asked me to forward a letter (attached) sent on its behalf to the GNSO Council. If folks recall, the “thick” WHOIS Consensus Policy recommendations included this:

"As part of the implementation process a legal review of law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model that has not already been considered in the EWG memo is undertaken and due consideration is given to potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the transition from thin to thick Whois, including, for example, guidance on how the long-standing contractual requirement that registrars give notice to, and obtain consent, from each registrant for uses of any personally identifiable data submitted by the registrant should apply to registrations involved in the transition. Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken.”

In June, 2015, ICANN’s Legal Dept. submitted a memo in follow up of the above recommendation, which can be found on this page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-27-en. The IRT believes that the privacy/data protection law environment has changed since the production of the legal memo by ICANN Legal. Although the IRT has not reached any consensus on recommending further policy work as a result of its findings, there is agreement that the shifting privacy/data protection environment may complicate the transition from “thin” to “thick” WHOIS for some contracted parties. This letter is meant to brief the Council on the IRT’s work in that regard. Thanks. Amr