[council] MOTION: Confirmation that modifications to the procedure for WHOIS Conflicts with local law...

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Mon Feb 6 23:54:08 UTC 2017

Council colleagues -

Attached and copied below, please find a draft motion for consideration during our next call on 16 FEB 2017.  This motion is the third (!) attempt to address the final report of the IAG from May of last year.

What's Changed:  The new motion differs from previous motions on this topic, in particular,

-- The Council resolves to accept that the recommendations are consistent with the WHOIS Conflicts with local law procedure.

--  Additionally, the Council resolves to commence another review no later than May 2017, under the "annual review" prescribed by the procedure.

I am hopeful that linking acceptance of the IAG's recommendations, along with a commitment to further review of the procedure, will address concerns that have stymied our work on this issue over the past several months.  And I look forward to a thorough discussion of this topic/motion on the list and during our next call.

Thank you,



Draft motion – Confirmation that modification to procedure that implements the Whois conflicts with privacy law policy recommendation is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendation


1.     In November 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) concluded a policy development process (PDP) on Whois conflicts with privacy law, which recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's Whois obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations.

2.     The ICANN Board of Directors adopted the recommendations in May 2006 and the final procedure was made effective in January 2008.

3.     As noted in the GNSO Operating Procedures, “Periodic assessment of PDP recommendations and policies is an important tool to guard against unexpected results or inefficient processes arising from GNSO policies”. As called for in Step 6 of the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedure-2008-01-17-en>, “ICANN will review the effectiveness of the process annually”.

4.     ICANN launched a review of the procedure in May 2014. Following a Call for Volunteers addressed to all interested parties, an Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed to review the implementation of the policy recommendations and began its work in January 2015. The IAG devoted most of its time discussing whether additional triggers to invoke the procedure should be incorporated and if so how to ensure that they remain consistent with the existing policy.

5.     On 26 May 2016, the IAG submitted its final report and recommendation to the GNSO Council.

6.     In its final report, the IAG recommends a modification to the existing Whois Conflicts Procedure. The modification would allow a party to trigger the procedure by obtaining a written statement from the government agency charged with enforcing its data privacy laws indicating that a particular Whois obligation conflicts with national law and then submitting that statement to ICANN, in addition to the existing trigger.


1.     The GNSO Council has reviewed the IAG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-23may16-en.pdf) and concludes that the proposed modification to the procedure conforms to the intent of the original policy recommendations and as such the GNSO Council confirms its non-objection to the modification being implemented by Global Domains Division Staff as outlined in Appendix I (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-appendix-1-23may16-en.pdf) as soon as practically feasible.

2.     The GNSO Council recommends that as soon as the modification has been implemented all affected parties are informed accordingly.

3.     Furthermore, the GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff, based on their experience of administering the modification, assess the practicality and feasibility of this new triggerin comparison to the existing trigger as well as the other triggers discussed in the IAG Final Report and reports back accordingly to the GNSO Council.

4.     This assessment will inform the next periodic review of the effectiveness of the process, as directed by the policy, which will commence no later than 31 May 2017.  The GNSO requests ICANN staff to report within 45 days on a projected timeline for this review and the assessment described in (3), and a draft charter for this working group.

5.     The GNSO Council thanks the IAG for its work and takes note of the minority views included in the Final Report. The GNSO Council requests that these are shared with the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services PDP Working Group as the broader WHOIS issues raised in these views are expected to be dealt with in that PDP.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170206/1ae2b210/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft motion  IAG Final Report - 2 FEB 2017_DA - final.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 21110 bytes
Desc: Draft motion  IAG Final Report - 2 FEB 2017_DA - final.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170206/1ae2b210/DraftmotionIAGFinalReport-2FEB2017_DA-final.docx>

More information about the council mailing list