Thanks Julf This is a very helpful summary. I don't think the Board has ever formally rejected GAC advice previously, in large part because the process to do so could take six months or more. If they are disputing advice on GDPR this puts a lot of pressure on that timeframe. Donna -----Original Message----- From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 5:42 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] GAC update Dear Councillors, The notes from the GAC and ICANN Board Conference Call Regarding the ICANN61 Communique that was held on April 11 are available at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gac.icann.org_sessions_... I guess this was held a day before the Article 29 Working Party response was received by ICANN, but on the subject of the GAC advice related to Whois Compliance with GDPR, the notes state: "Regarding possible conflicts between GAC Advice and Art. 29 WP guidance, the GAC Chair highlighted the necessity to expedite the Bylaws-mandated consultation process before the entry into force of the GDPR on 25 May 2018 (should the ICANN Board decide to reject part of the GAC Advice). More specifically, United States suggested that such consultation be conducted remotely (and not face-to-face), in the interest of time. Discussion of process and timeline of ICANN Board’s consideration of GAC Advice identified a number of steps required before the Board can decide on whether to adopt or reject GAC Advice: Considering ICANN Org advice, Conducting due diligence on advice received, Reaching out to other parts of the ICANN Community. ICANN’s General Counsel stressed that the triggering of a consultation between ICANN Board and GAC is not time-bound. It is required prior to the ICANN Board taking action that is inconsistent with GAC Advice. Considering the GDPR enforcement timeline, the General Counsel indicated that this would have to occur prior to the ICANN Board approving a “temporary specification”, between now and 24 May 2018. Reflecting on the uncertainty of Art. 29 WP feedback, the ICANN CEO indicated a potential need to “go back to the drawing board” or follow-up with clarifying questions. He also shared concerns with a potential fragmentation of Whois should Art. 29 WP not provide a moratorium on enforcement. The GAC and ICANN Board anticipate meeting again, possibly in a conference call format, prior to the ICANN62 meeting in Panama. In the meantime, the GAC is looking forward to a substantive discussion of the matter with the ICANN Org, once Art. 29 WP guidance is available." There is also a response letter from the board to GAC (dealing with IGO acronyms) at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources... containing a set of questions to the GAC: "1. Which lists are the subject of the Advice: the list of IGO Names, the list of Identifiers/Acronyms, or both? 2. What is the nature of the assistance that the GAC believes may be needed of the ICANN organization in order to ensure that the GAC’s lists are accurate and complete? 3. Could the GAC confirm that it remains the authoritative organization to determine which IGOs are to be protected [including an IGO’s specific name, acronym and applicable language(s)] as well as to determine any updates that are to be made to the list? 4. What mechanism does the GAC believe should be utilized for maintaining the accuracy of the list, i.e., for adding or deleting a name or identifier from the list? Can the GAC confirm that it is possible to have a scenario where an IGO’s name (but not acronym) is deleted such that the deleted name becomes available for third parties while the acronym remains under protection, and vice versa (i.e., where the acronym is deleted but not the name)?" Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...