[Comments-whois-privacy-law-03may17] Update - Review of ICANN’s Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law

[KIMPIAN Peter]

Dear Madam, Sir,

Please find attached the comments on behalf of the Data Protection Unit of the Council of Europe to the revised Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law.

Best regards,

Peter Kimpian
Data Protection Unit
Human Rights and Rule of Law
CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE - COUNCIL OF EUROPE
tel :  + 33(0) 3 90 21 58 51
www.coe.int/dataprotection<http://www.coe.int/dataprotection>
[cid:image003.png at 01D27D7A.9C76A8F0]



From: gac-bounces at gac.icann.org<mailto:gac-bounces at gac.icann.org> [mailto:gac-bounces at gac.icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux
Sent: mercredi 14 juin 2017 13:06
To: gac at icann.org<mailto:gac at icann.org>; gac-pswg at icann.org<mailto:gac-pswg at icann.org>
Subject: [GAC] Update - Review of ICANN’s Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law

Dear GAC and PSWG Members,

Please note that the Public Comment period below was extended to 7 July 2017.

Best Regards
Fabien

From: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux at icann.org<mailto:fabien.betremieux at icann.org>>
Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 02:11
To: "gac at icann.org<mailto:gac at icann.org>" <gac at icann.org<mailto:gac at icann.org>>
Subject: Review of ICANN’s Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law

Dear GAC Members,

On 3 May, a public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-privacy-law-2017-05-03-en> was opened in connection with a GNSO Council resolution<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170216-1> which called for ICANN to review the effectiveness of the recently revised Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedure-2008-01-17-en>. As you may be aware, this is happening in the context of the changing landscape in Data Protection Law around the world, in particular with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).<http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/index_en.htm>

On 15 May, a letter from the ICANN GDD President to the GAC Chair<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-schneider-12may17-en.pdf> was released on ICANN’s Correspondence page<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence>. In this letter, considering the GAC’s stated interest in these matters (most recently in the Copenhagen Communiqué<https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee>), ICANN is inviting GAC comments on its staff paper<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedure-03may17-en.pdf>, including through participation of National Data Protection Agencies (DPA).

The deadline for Public Comments is set to 12 June 2017.


Additional Information:

The Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedure-2008-01-17-en> is designed for contracted parties to request exemptions from their contracts with ICANN in case there is a conflict between their obligations and Privacy Laws. While it is in place since 2016, it has never been used because it original trigger has been considered unrealistic: an entity would have to be under a judicial or administrative proceeding to benefit from it.

Recognizing this, a first revision process was undertaken in 2015 and led to the addition of a new trigger. However, some contracted parties did not think this would be any more practical. In fact, as indicated during the recent ICANN GDD Summit<https://www.icann.org/gddsummit>, Dutch new gTLD Registries (.AMSTERDAM, .FRL) reportedly had to breach their contract obligations to comply with Dutch Privacy Law for lack of meeting any of the triggers of this procedure.

ICANN is now asking for GAC and DPAs input on 4 questions included in the staff paper (among others):

1.      How feasible is it for data protection agencies to provide a party with a written statement indicating that a WHOIS obligation in an ICANN contract conflicts with national law?

2.      What type of evidence or documentation should a requesting party provide to the data protection agencies?

3.      What challenges, if any, will data protection agencies face in terms of providing a party with a written statement indicating that a WHOIS obligation in an ICANN contract conflicts with national law?

4.      What improvements or changes could be made to better engage data protection agencies in this process, i.e., Would direct contact with ICANN make the process more efficient?


Thank you for your attention

Best Regards
--
Fabien Betremieux
GAC Relations Advisor
Policy Development Support | ICANN
FR: +33 7 60 09 09 40 | US: +1 310 463 5334 | Skype: fabien.betremieux


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-whois-privacy-law-03may17/attachments/20170614/d8b43b2f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 124464 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-whois-privacy-law-03may17/attachments/20170614/d8b43b2f/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q&A_tiggers_whois_conflict_with_privacy_laws.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 32436 bytes
Desc: Q&A_tiggers_whois_conflict_with_privacy_laws.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-whois-privacy-law-03may17/attachments/20170614/d8b43b2f/QA_tiggers_whois_conflict_with_privacy_laws-0001.docx>