ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] FW: Data Protection/Whois Conflicts

  • To: "gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] FW: Data Protection/Whois Conflicts
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:29:54 -0700

As discussed during today's meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

On 07/03/13 19:35, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Don, 
>
>Further to Dan's note, we've checked internally but we are not aware of
>any registrar that has invoked that procedure. On the registry side, it is
>a little bit more complicated. We have had a couple of registries that
>have requested and received amendments to their registry agreements
>permitting them to show tiered or thin data in their registry Whois output
>for certain types of individuals / natural persons (see.CAT Amendment No.
>2 (17 July 2012) 
>http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/cat/amendment-2-17jul1
>2
>-en.htm and .TEL Amendment No. 2 (4 February 2008)
>http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/tel/registry-agmt-amen
>d
>ment-2-04feb08-en.htm). However, it would take significant research to go
>back and reconstruct all the details of exactly what role the ICANN
>procedure played in the handling of the registry agreement amendments, and
>to accurately and comprehensively describe the exact changes that were
>made to those agreements. Of course, we could do so if deemed useful for
>the WG's deliberations, but it may be worth pointing out that we
>anticipate that soon after the New RAA is introduced, we will be having
>further conversations with the GAC and with the contracted parties about
>how the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law can
>be updated to address conflicts with data retention as well as
>Whois-related laws, and to determine if there is a way that the procedure
>can be invoked without requiring contracted parties to have a proceeding
>initiated against them.  This would be part of a staff-initiated review
>that is contemplated within the procedure itself. Of course, any
>information or suggestions that the WG may have in relation to this review
>would be welcomed by staff.
>
>Please feel free to forward this response to the WG and/or sub-team if
>deemed of interest.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Marika

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy