[Gnso-epdp-team] FW: Questions for ICANN Org from EPDP Team Meeting - 9 August 2018
trang.nguyen at icann.org
Thu Sep 13 18:06:28 UTC 2018
Dear Marc and EPDP Team,
It is the latter, no waivers have ever been issued by ICANN pursuant to that procedure. As an additional data point that might of interest to the EPDP Team, ICANN has granted 35 waivers modifying the RAA’s data retention requirements. These waivers are published here <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/retention-2013-09-13-en>.
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team" <Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Reply-To: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 7:06 AM
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] FW: Questions for ICANN Org from EPDP Team Meeting - 9 August 2018
Thank you Marika and Trang for this response. I have a follow up on the Whois Conflicts procedure question. The response provided doesn’t actually answer the questions on if the procedure has been successfully used to date. The two (.FRL) examples provided are both example where it was not successfully used (one withdrawn, the other didn’t meet the requirements). Can you clarify if the procedure has ever successfully been used? Are the two (.FRL) cases the only times someone attempted to use the procedure or have there been others?
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:30 AM
To: Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-team] FW: Questions for ICANN Org from EPDP Team Meeting - 9 August 2018
For your information. The responses to these questions will be posted on the related wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ahppBQ.
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 09:12
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org<mailto:daniel.halloran at icann.org>>, Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org<mailto:erika.randall at icann.org>>
Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb at icann.org>>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: Questions for ICANN Org from EPDP Team Meeting - 9 August 2018
Please see below responses to the question from the 21 August meeting.
QUESTION: Can an update be provided on the status of the reconfirmation of the Temporary Specification by the ICANN Board? Response: There is a board meeting planned for later today (21 August). No changes to the Temporary Specification are being proposed.
RESPONSE: The Board reaffirmed<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-08-21-en> the Temporary Specification with no changes on 21 August 2018.
QUESTION: Has the WHOIS Conflicts with local laws procedure been used and successfully used to date? Please indicate the instances where the procedure was invoked and the outcome. Were any specific issues identified with the use of this procedure?
RESPONSE: The procedure was most recently invoked for .FRL in late 2017. However, the request was withdrawn prior to an outcome when .FRL agreed to comply with the requirements of the Temporary Specification. The request was withdrawn early on in the process so ICANN org had not conducted a formal review to identify specific issues with the procedure.
The procedure was also previously attempted by .FRL in late 2016 but the request did not meet the requirements to utilize the procedure. At the time, requirement to trigger the procedure was that the contracted party must have received “notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action that might affect its compliance.” However, .FRL was not subject to any such proceeding at the time, and the procedure could not be used.
QUESTION: Regarding data disclosures concerning LEA requests: does GDPR compel a report of those disclosures to be made to the data subject? Please provide analysis of “in-jurisdiction” and “out-of-jurisdiction” requests.
RESPONSE: The latest Draft Framework for a Possible Unified Access Model for Continued Access to Full WHOIS Data – For Discussion<Draft%20Framework%20for%20a%20Possible%20Unified%20Access%20Model%20for%20Continued%20Access%20to%20Full%20WHOIS%20Data%20–%20For%20Discussion> addresses the question of “whether or not logs of query activities concerning non-public data must be available to the registrant upon request except if prohibited by a relevant court order or legal requirement.” Please refer to Section 8 of the draft framework for more information on this topic. The draft framework is published for community discussion and to seek guidance from the European Data Protection Board. With a better understanding of the law, we will all be well positioned to develop, implement and enforce a legally sound, consistent unified model for access to non-public registration data, and lower the risk for the contracted parties in order for them to be able to accept such model.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team