[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments.

[Chris Pelling]

Good afternoon all, 

First and foremost we have had ten registrars (including myself) interested in the alternative solution, so day one there will be at least 1 triggering it - as that will be me. 
This being just the RrSG folks, once ICANN reach out to all registrar from GDD, I am positive you will find more. But, as mentioned - I have had active requests for the alternative to be created. 

Further questions: 


1. The Verisign/GNSO memo, does this need to go directly to GNSO, or, via ICANN legal first, I assume this will happen before the public comment period? 

2. Alan G. said that a legal review by ICANN legal is needed (I mentioned to include EU lawyers) because the original legal review in 2015 did not include Safe Harbor, nor contemplating that Safe Harbor would be invalidated, where are we on this and I assume this will happen before the public comment period? 


3. Implementation notes state there is a procedure for handling whois conflicts. However, the current method for handling WHOIS conflicts is not working, and the WHOIS IAG version is at the GNSO and still does not include an effective procedure as EU privacy regulators are not giving statements to trigger the procedure. So this kind of sits at a stalemate, is ICANN going to remove this? (I would assume they can't, but we do need more info/guidance) 

The above points 1 and 2, will these happen before the public comment period or after? Please note if you state afterwards, we are all potentially sitting here wasting time, as once those 2 legals come back, it is more than likely we will all end up reviewing those and going for a second public comment period based on new findings and changes to existing work - I am just trying to save time here (and everyone's sanity) :-) 



Kind regards, 

Chris 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20161002/711e52fb/attachment-0001.html>