<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>Some personal comments:<div class="">- WHOIS is already fragmented today. There are clusters of similar patterns like new gTLDs, RIRs etc., but for most of the names and numbers objects, there are specifics of what is presented and in what conditions. Considering the limited number of RSPs, even different interpretations wouldn't generate that many differences overall. And even the deployment of RDAP doesn't solve that, it just standardises the line protocol used to request and get the information. </div><div class="">- It is unreasonable to expect DPAs to issue a moratorium, since GDPR also allows citizens to challenge DPAs actions or inactions. It's asking others to put a rope around their neck, and notably at a matter where the same DPAs challenged ICANN decisions for decades. </div><div class="">- The legal action possibility is curious, since its basic ask would be "Please allow me to break the law". Not something prone to injunctions or similar fast-paced decisions, although a merit decision in favor of ICANN could happen. It could serve, though, as emotional comfort to the community. Perhaps EU lawmakers could be a better avenue to get an exemption equating WHOIS to land registries and similar bodies. </div><div class="">- Their letter looks like "sudden death" for the accreditation model that was being built. But it could be reborn in a different fashion. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Rubens</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 12 Apr 2018, at 19:23, Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" class="">icann@ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">This letter from the Article 29 Working Party to ICANN is well worth a read:<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr18-en.pdf" class="">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr18-en.pdf</a><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">ICANN has also published a post here, expressing disappointment that "the letter does not mention our request for a moratorium on enforcement of the law until we implement a model."<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en" class="">https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-04-12-en</a><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best wishes,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><div class="">Ayden Férdeline <br class=""></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">council mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" class="">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>