ICANN 60 The Outcome

Due to ICANN’s community input and careful review, ICANN suggests the following to the CPH’s.

Please comply with your ICANN contracts which clearly state that you should comply with your applicable law or relevant laws from other countries that might be applicable due to your customer base.

Result? Registrars will start to offer privacy protect for “free” and put existing registrations on privacy protect. If you have to build such a system as Registrar? The cost of doing business.

On the bright side, we will finally have a system that allows transfers without the need to drop the privacy service first.

Plus there will be less WHOIS inaccuracy complaints and the syntax of the WHOIS will improve on a global level.

The downside, Registrars will get swamped in requests at first by parties who rely heavily on WHOIS data.

Thick Whois Migration Verisign

I have been at the IRT for the Thick WHOIS Verisign Migration for some time now (early NOV 2015).

All was well, till we received a draft from Verisign that there might be some issues. This memo wich has been prepared for the GNSO highlights some potential issues.

I’ll publish it in full:

DRAFT

To: GNSO Council

From Thick Whois IRT

Date: xx August 2016

Re: Notice of Unanticipated Thick Whois Privacy Issues

In accordance with Recommendation #3 of the GNSO Council Consensus Policy Recommendations on Thick Whois adopted by the ICANN Board on 7 February 2014 (the “Thick Whois Policy”), the Thick Whois Implementation Review Team (“IRT”) is hereby providing notice to the GNSO Council that privacy issues have emerged from the thin to thick data transition discussions that were not anticipated by the August 29, 2013 Expert Working Group Memo (the “EWG Memo”) and that appear to require additional policy consideration by the GNSO Council so that appropriate action can be taken as the Thick Whois Policy implementation process continues to move forward.

Specifically, and as outlined in more detail below, the recent invalidation of the US-EU Safe Harbor Program and the adoption of the new EU-US “Privacy Shield” framework, the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in the European Union (“EU”) and the ongoing legal challenges and scrutiny regarding transfers of personal data to the US from the EU have resulted in significant uncertainty regarding data privacy requirements associated with the collection, storage, transmission and display of personally identifiable information (PII), specifically thick Whois data, that should be addressed as the implementation of the Thick Whois Policy moves forward.

Recommendation #3 of the Thick Whois Policy states:

As part of the implementation process a legal review of law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model that has not already been considered in the Expert Working Group (EWG) memo is undertaken and due consideration is given to potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the transition from thin to thick Whois, including, for example, guidance on how the long-standing contractual requirement that registrars give notice to, and obtain consent, from each registrant for uses of any personally identifiable data submitted by the registrant should apply to registrations involved in the transition. Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken.

As required by Recommendation #3, ICANN staff conducted a legal review of law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model and communicated the results of this review to the IRT in a Legal Review Memorandum dated 8 June 2015 (the “Legal Review Memo”). The Legal Review Memo focused its analysis on a survey of data protection laws within the EU and based on that analysis advised the IRT that “there are some important and legitimate questions relating to data protection obligations under local law that must be addressed” as a part of the Thick Whois Policy implementation. The Legal Review Memo further advised the IRT that the legal requirements regarding the disclosure and transfer of personal data to the relevant registries “trigger particular attention” in relation to the implementation of the Thick Whois Policy. (p. 6)

In the short period since the Legal Review Memo was provided to the IRT highlighting the importance of addressing the law in the EU regarding the disclosure and transfer of personal data as a part of the transition, that law has entered an unprecedented period of change and uncertainty. The US-EU “Safe Harbor Program”, which previously provided one means by which to lawfully transfer personal data from the EU to the US, was invalidated in October 2015 and the replacement “EU- US Privacy Shield” announced in February 2016 was just recently adopted by the European Commission on 12 July 2016.1

In the wake of the invalidation of the US-EU Safe Harbor Program and the development of the EU-US Privacy Shield, the use of consent to effectuate transfers of personal data, which the Legal Review Memo identified as “likely to be the most expedient way of addressing the transition to thick Whois” (p. 10), has been called into question by regulators in the EU, particularly in the context of large and/or repeated transfers of personal data. Both the Irish and German data protection regulators, for example, have indicated that reliance on consent, standing alone, may be problematic and German regulators have determined that consent is not valid for “massive or routine” transfers of personal data.2

The law in the EU regarding personal data protection, in general, has also entered a state of uncertainty and change since the EWG considered the privacy issues associated with the transition, as the new GDPR was adopted on May 4, 2016, and will go into effect on May 25, 2018.3

The GDPR establishes a substantially more restrictive compliance landscape regarding the consent-based processing of personal data. For instance, the European Commission’s fact sheet on the GDPR notes that consent “will have to be given by means of a clear affirmative action before a company can process your personal data.”4 The new GDPR may, therefore, have a significant impact on the Thick Whois transition when it comes into force, particularly with regard to reliance on registrant consent for effectuating the transition.

The IRT believes that the invalidation of the US-EU Safe Harbor Program, the development of the EU-US Privacy Shield, the adoption of the new GDPR by the European Commission and decisions by regulators raise new privacy issues not anticipated by the EWG that require additional policy consideration by the GNSO Council, particularly with respect to the potential use of registrant consent to effectuate the Thick Whois transition. Moreover, as Legal Review Memo recognized, EU data protection laws “embody international principles which serve as a basis for many data protection laws around the world.” (p. 3) In addition to the uncertainty caused by changes in EU laws, members of the IRT are also aware of other jurisdictions which have, or are in the process of, enacting regulations with a potential direct impact on thick Whois policies and procedures, such as laws that require personal data to be hosted locally within a particular jurisdiction. The proliferation of these laws and applicability to the collection, storage, transmission and display of personal data should be a consideration for all gTLD registries and registrars, and in particular for the transition of gTLDs from a thin to thick Whois model.

1 See European Commission Press Release, “European Commission launches EU-U.S. Privacy Shield: stronger protection for transatlantic data flows” (available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2461_en.htm).

2 See Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland, “Transfer Abroad” Guidance (available at https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Transfers-Abroad/y/37.htm); Conference of the Data Protection Commissioners of the German Federation and the German States, DSK Position Paper on Safe Harbor Invalidation (available at https://www.datenschutz.hessen.de/ft-europa.htm#entry4521).

3 See European Commission, “Reform of EU data protection rules” (available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/index_en.htm).

4 See European Commission Factsheet, “How does the data protection reform strengthen citizens’ rights?” (available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/index_en.htm)

My problem here? Well as an EU Registrar we never cared much about Safe Harbor. After all, we never sent any personal data to Verisign to register .com or .net domain names. So safe harbor was never on our radar, least not on mine. Now it does, and a lot of our business depend on having a reliable process. Privacy Shield is the follow up for the invalidated Safe Harbor. Lawyers in Europe tell me that Privacy Shield will not last long, couple a years max.

So yes, I am sorta paralyzed on what to do here. We got a lot of business riding on this for sure, and it looks like we are moving into uncertain waters. On the flip side, the current system is not great also. It won’t be long till some EU privacy regulator comes knocking on our door when it comes to our WHOIS server and the data being published there.

Are we going to buy some time by shifting the legal burden to Verisign or in the long run we have created a single point of failure, and we discover in time that the system has failed? I have no idea.

Theo Geurts

ICANN IRT Member

Business trips, firing on all cylinders.

Usually, I take a plane to go to ICANN meetings or go to a business meeting.

Then there is also the car. This meeting, 800 kilometers, in Germany.
We (me and some company folks) did the trip in 6 hours beating a plane when it came to total travel time.

How? 243.

Volvo V60 hybrid max top speed.

Volvo V60 hybrid max top speed.

I do not recommend this unless you have a professional driver at the wheel during day time. Having a pro driver who can anticipate behavior miles ahead makes all the difference. I mean you are in the left lane doing 240.

Then some dork takes over a truck while doing 100km an hour.

YES… I DO love the Volvo breaking system!!!!!