[CCWG-ACCT] Proposed WHOIS language

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Sep 2 02:34:35 UTC 2015


May I draw to everyone's attention the fact that there are now 101 
national privacy laws in the world. (Greenleaf, 2014).  All input 
received from the assembled data commissioners in charge of overseeing 
compliance with those laws has indicated that they contradict the next 
sentence: Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to 
maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete 
WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and 
administrative contact information.
This advice, elaborating how the various components of that sentence are 
not in compliance with data protection rights has been sent to ICANN in 
various ways since 2000 (I am rounding off there, there were certainly 
earlier indications of problems provided from the inception of ICANN).  
Does it not seem that it is time to review the wisdom of a policy that 
disregards privacy rights?
Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin


On 2015-09-01 21:31, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> Thanks, Bruce.  For comparison purposes, I pasted the CCWG’s proposed 
> language below your text.
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf 
> of Bruce Tonkin
> Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:24 PM
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed WHOIS language
>
> Below is some suggested language regarding WHOIS reviews for 
> consideration by the CCWG when considering what to incorporate into 
> the bylaws regarding the AoC reviews.
>
> Note the Board has no plans to cancel the current AoC - so the 
> language in the AoC -  still stands until the community and NTIA wish 
> to change it.
>
> This language however tries to contemplate an environment where we are 
> introducing a new gTLD Directory Service as a result of policy 
> development within  the GNSO, as well as most likely continuing to run 
> the existing WHOIS service for some time.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS 
> and any future gTLD Directory Service, subject to applicable laws, and 
> working with the community to explore structural changes to improve 
> accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as well as consider 
> safeguards for protecting data.
>
> This Review includes a commitment that becomes part of ICANN Bylaws, 
> regarding enforcement of the current WHOIS and any future gTLD 
> Directory Service policy requirements.
>
> The Board shall cause a periodic Review to assess the extent to which 
> WHOIS/Directory Services policy is effective and its implementation 
> meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promotes consumer 
> trust, and safeguards data.
>
> The Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Review 
> recommendations have been completed, and the extent to which 
> implementation has had the intended effect.
>
> This periodic Review shall be convened no less frequently than every 
> five years, measured from the date the Board took action on previous 
> review recommendations.
> _______________________________________________
> From CCWG 2nd draft proposal, page 81:
>
> ICANN commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to 
> WHOIS/Directory Services, subject to applicable laws. Such existing 
> policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, 
> unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS 
> information, including registrant, technical, billing, and 
> administrative contact information.
>
> The Board shall cause a periodic Review to assess the extent to which 
> WHOIS/Directory Services policy is effective and its implementation 
> meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer 
> trust.
>
> This Review will consider the OECD guidelines regarding privacy, as 
> defined by the OECD in 1980 and amended in 2013.
>
> The Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Review 
> recommendations have been implemented.
>
> This periodic Review shall be convened no less frequently than every 
> five years, measured from the date the previous Review was convened.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150901/0228d36d/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list