| No. | Recommendation | Recipient | Thematic Group Source | Assignees | Status |
| 14 | ICANN should adjust its contractual framework to minimize conflict between its requirements and relevant national laws. | ICANN Board; ICANN Staff | TG2 |
| COMPLETED |
Implementation Details
The At-Large Community has been keen on advising ICANN to systematically adjust its contractual framework and minimize the conflict between contractual requirements and national laws/regulations. For example, the ALAC is in process preparing a Statement that advises ICANN to improve the Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request process and to develop a preemptive solution that minimizes the legal, financial, and operational impact on non-US registrars.
At-Large members have also been actively contributing to the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream Jurisdiction SubGroup. One of the work areas of the SubGroup is to address ICANN’s relationships with the national jurisdictions for particular domestic issues (ccTLDs managers, protected names either for international institutions or country and other geographic names, national security, etc.), privacy, and freedom of expression.
Next Step
The ALAC will submit the advice to the ICANN Board with regard to the Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request process. At-Large will continue engaging in the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Jurisdiction SubGroup. Seasoned At-Large leaders will encourage more At-Large members to participate proactively and make greater influence.
Actions:
- The ALAC Ex-Chair (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) to informally get in touch with colleagues on other SOs and ACs about this issue
- Alan Greenberg and Holly Raiche to be consulted on this matter. Update on https://community.icann.org/x/Ko1lAw
Notes:
:
This problem is often found when it comes to the treatment of personal information.
Work is currently taking place two-fold:
by ICANN issuing special amendments to its contracts on a case by case basis specifically regarding its data retention waivers:
etc. Many of these are individual Data Retention Waivers but also a process to change the agreement on a more permanent basis
The ICANN Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability is also looking at the Issue. I would recommend that the work of this working group be examined once it is complete
Worth noting that I have asked other SO/AC Chair in the past about this issue (prior to the work taking place above) and there was, at the time, barely any response.
It is partially completed as the ICANN has done a lot of work with respect to this recommendation, examples as mentioned above.
Part of the CCWG Accountability work (e.g. how the Review Process will be taken into account, role of local/national laws, how to write the bylaw, discussion regard the human rights at the global and national level) is relevant to this recommendation
(feedback from Alan Greenberg)
The WS2 Jurisdiction Staff Paper ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jt6Rb5UjzNwd5WXZ0Bt1W5ryiiQ-lB690vPnMZB7pKc/edit #) includes among its points:
"Relationships with the national jurisdictions for particular domestic issues (ccTLDs managers, protected names either for international institutions or country and other geographic names, national security, etc.), privacy, freedom of expression."
- So I would say it will certainly be discussed.
1 Comment
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
This problem is often found when it comes to the treatment of personal information.
Work is currently taking place two-fold:
https://community.icann.org/x/M5vhAg
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-10-en
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-05-en
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-04-en
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-04-10-en
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-27-en
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-24-en
etc. Many of these are individual Data Retention Waivers but also a process to change the agreement on a more permanent basis
Worth noting that I have asked other SO/AC Chair in the past about this issue (prior to the work taking place above) and there was, at the time, barely any response.