Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT)
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
Dear all, The letter to the GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team has now been posted on the GNSO Website here:https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts And can be viewed directly here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-15dec16-en.pdf Kind regards Nathalie On 12/17/16, 4:13 PM, "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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources... . 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
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 on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of 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
participants (3)
-
Amr Elsadr -
James M. Bladel -
Nathalie Peregrine