[council] ICANN Files Legal Action in Germany to Preserve WHOIS Data

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Thu May 31 10:43:42 UTC 2018

I’d agree with the first part
The second part should be left up to the registrar as to how they want to implement it including any warnings.

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Date: Thursday 31 May 2018 at 11:29
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Files Legal Action in Germany to Preserve WHOIS Data

On 31 May 2018, at 07:10, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>> wrote:

Thanks Ayden – so no further forward. (An unfortunate reference to the artist formally known at WP29 though).
Anyone have any insights on next steps?

- Replace "MUST collect admin-c/tech-c" with "MAY collect" in the temp spec.
- Add an admin-c/tech-c consent mechanism that could read like this "If registrar offer to collect admin-c/tech-c information, consent MUST be sought from the data subjects to processing of PII" (example: registrant says that rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br> is the admin contact of example.com<http://example.com>; registrar sends e-mails to rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br> to confirm consent)



From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 10:19 AM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Files Legal Action in Germany to Preserve WHOIS Data

An update; the Court has rejected ICANN's request for an injunction.



‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 26 May 2018 2:26 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:


There is a definite information asymmetry between the GNSO Council and ICANN org at the moment. This was not a spontaneous decision; it has clearly been in the works for weeks. I don't see how we can even contemplate launching an ePDP when we are not aware of all the actions that ICANN is up to behind the scenes vis-à-vis WHOIS.


council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180531/907bb158/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list