Launch of the Implementation Advisory Group to Review Existing ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law
We are pleased to announce the launch of the Implementation Advisory Group to Review the Existing ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law (IAG-WHOIS Conflicts). Sixty-one (61) individuals responded to the Call for Volunteers. IAG-WHOIS Conflicts is an open group convened to serve for a limited duration and scope, focusing exclusively on evaluating the ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law and providing recommendations on possible changes to the Procedure to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO.)
We welcome the following volunteers as members of the newly convened IAG-WHOIS Conflicts:
|Abdullahi Adhi Gewana|
|Mona Al Achkar Jabbour|
|Hela Ben Nejima|
|Don M. Blumenthal|
|Shady El Shafei|
|Steven J. Metalitz|
|Ghislain Nyamfit Ng.|
|Adrián Quesada Rodríguez|
|Merit Ramses Kamal|
|Seth M. Reiss|
|John WD Thomson|
|Mbungyuh Tseyah James|
|Ali Yesdel Ibrahim|
To track the work of this group, please visit the IAG-WHOIS Conflicts Wiki.
IAG-WHOIS Conflicts Schedule and Operations
The IAG-WHOIS Conflicts is expected to commence its work in January 2015 and produce its recommendations by June 2015.
A kick-off conference call will be scheduled for 7 January.
A schedule of subsequent calls and meetings will be available on the IAG-WHOIS Conflicts Wiki.
IAG-WHOIS Conflicts Mission and Scope
The IAG-WHOIS Conflicts is tasked with providing the GNSO Council suggestions on how to improve the current Procedure. The The IAG's mission and scope will focus on changes to the Procedure and not ICANN's contractual requirements. Any recommendations made by the IAG will be forwarded to the GNSO Council to determine whether implementation of the Procedure ought to be changed.
As part of its deliberations, the IAG should, at a minimum, consider the following issues that were highlighted in the recent Report of Public Comments on this topic. Those issues include:
- Process: Should the Procedure be revised to allow for invocation prior to contracting?
- If adopted, how would that alter the contracting process?
- What parties would be most appropriate to include at this early stage of the Procedure?
- Trigger: What triggers would be appropriate for invoking the Procedure?
- Would evidence from a data protection authority that the contract is in conflict with national laws be sufficient to trigger the Procedure? If so, how would ICANN define which data protection authority is an acceptable authority? Would the authority have to be a nationally representative body? Should a regional body's opinion carry the same weight as a national or local authority?
- Similarly, would an official opinion from a government agency provide enough evidence? If so, which agencies would be most appropriate? Would it have to be an agency tasked with data protection? What about a consumer trust bureau or treasury department that includes consumer protections in its mandate? Or would a foreign ministry provide the best source of information? Which bodies would be considered authoritative enough to provide a creditable opinion?
- Would evidence of a conflict from ICANN-provided analysis provide sufficient information to invoke the Procedure? What type of evidence should this analysis cite?
- If the Procedure allowed for a written opinion from a nationally recognized law firm to provide sufficient evidence for a trigger? What types of firms could be considered nationally recognized? Should it be accredited or made to prove its competency? If so, how? What if ICANN receives contradictory opinions from two firms? How is it to determine the more valid argument?
- Public comment: How should public comments be incorporated into the Procedure?
- What role should comments have in ICANN's decision-making process?
- What length of public comment period is appropriate to ensure that the Procedure is completed in a timely fashion?
- How should comments be analyzed?
- Should public comments be treated as a safeguard in case a decision is flawed?
The IAG shall invite participation in its discussions from other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, including the GAC.
ICANN announced a Call for Volunteers for the Implementation Advisory Group to Review Existing ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Laws on 14 October 2014. The call for volunteers followed a paper published 22 May 2014, which opened a review process to solicit community feedback on the Procedure's effectiveness. Based on the comments received in response to the paper, ICANN convened this IAG in order to explore suggested changes to the Procedure, which would be forwarded to the GNSO Council for its consideration.
Please contact Eleeza Agopian at email@example.com with any questions.