+1 I agree 100% with James’ view on this The trigger needs to be reasonable and proportional As a registrar based in Ireland I cannot get the DPA or another body to issue anything – that’s not how they work. It’s not how they are setup. They will, however, express their opinion via Article 29. And the only reason that the DPA in Ireland isn’t pursuing this actively is because they’re too busy with the likes of Facebook .. The DPAs are on the record on multiple occasions as to how they view the ICANN whois requirements and their obligations on registrars and registries – just look at any of the letters from Article 29 to ICANN over the last few years Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: James Gannon Date: Wednesday 6 May 2015 09:13 To: Steven Metalitz, 'Jamie Hedlund', "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Steve, I made a point of the google doc that there is a huge imbalance, the final decision-making rests with ICANNS General Council so why can’t we have something approaching parity, why can’t a registrar have counsel advise them and have that sent to ICANNs counsel as the trigger? I still don’t see the national bodies, with power of enforcement, issuing letters saying they intend to enforce the law ever happening. It’s an unreasonable request. -James Gannon From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:08 AM To: 'Jamie Hedlund'; whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Jamie and IAG-WHOIS colleagues, In response to Jamie’s paper, and the limited discussion we were able to have about it on last month’s call, please see attached some ideas for an alternative trigger mechanism aimed at meeting the “credible demonstration of legal prevention” threshold set by the ICANN consensus policy on this topic. I look forward to discussing this on tomorrow’s call, which I will endeavor to attend as much as I can, although it conflicts directly with another obligation on my calendar. Steve Metalitz From: Jamie Hedlund [mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:17 PM To: Metalitz, Steven; whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: Re: Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Steve, Thanks for pointing out the overlap. You are absolutely correct on all points. The discussion paper tries to tee up for discussion whether a package of verification elements that did not include notice of a process against an operator could meet the "credible demonstration of legal prevention" threshold. That package might include advice from the relevant GAC member, opinion from the ICANN GC, evidence of enforcement or intent to enforce the conflicting national privacy law, public comment and/or something else. Hope that makes sense. Look forward to tomorrow’s call. Thanks. Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> From: <Metalitz>, Steven Metalitz <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:02 PM To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Thanks for this discussion paper, Jamie, it should be helpful in framing our discussion tomorrow. As one aspect of the discussion tomorrow we should take a look at the existing procedure, as there may be some overlap with what you are proposing. For example, see section 2.1.2 of the current procedure: 2.1.2 Pursuant to advice from ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee, ICANN will request advice from the relevant national government on the authority of the request for derogation from the ICANN WHOIS requirements. Of course, the touchstone remains “credible demonstration of legal prevention,” which is the standard adopted by the community and articulated in the policy, which the procedure that we have been asked to review is intended to implement. Steve Metalitz From:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Hedlund Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:27 PM To: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting All, Attached please find a short paper for the upcoming call. It is intended to spur discussion on whether the trigger could be modified so long as adequate verification requirements were in place. The paper follows on from contributions to the discussions to date. This is the only proposed agenda item. Based on how the call goes, we can spend the last 10 minutes or so discussing next steps. If anyone would like to add anything to the agenda please let me know. Thanks. Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>