<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">Dear IRT Members,<br class=""><div><br></div>Following our meeting in Dublin, there were two items ICANN wanted to follow up on related to the transition from thin to thick Whois.<br class=""><div><br></div>1) Legal Review Memo: in response to Marc Anderson’s question regarding the status of the legal review memo required by policy recommendation 3, we would like to confirm that the memo published on 8 June 2015, discussed during the subsequent IRT meetings on 24 June (ICANN 53) and 4 August 2015, fulfills the portion of recommendation #3 which requires that “<i class="">As part of the implementation process a legal review of law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model that has not already been considered in the EWG memo is undertaken and due consideration is given to potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the transition from thin to thick Whois, including, for example, guidance on how the long-standing contractual requirement that registrars give notice to, and obtain consent, from each registrant for uses of any personally identifiable data submitted by the registrant should apply to registrations involved in the transition.</i>” <div class=""><br class=""></div>2) Transition from Thin to Thick: Joe Waldron questioned whether the recent data privacy law developments in Russia and the EU would warrant referring the matter back to the GNSO given that their impact may go beyond the scope of the policy recommendations, and considering policy recommendation 3 which states "<i class="">Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken</i>”. This is an interesting question, and it seems the IRT may want to discuss this notion. If that is the case, please let ICANN know and we can schedule a call for that discussion or you can have it on the mailing list.<br class=""><div><br></div>Best Regards</span></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;">--</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;">On behalf of the Implementation Project Team<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;">Fabien Betremieux<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;">Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;">Global Domains Division, ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>