[gnso-dow123] Conference Call on March 15th

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

Thanks again for agreeing to have a discussion on March 15, 2005 with the GNSO 
Whois Task Force on Paul Verhoef's e-mail (attached hereto) to the Task Force 
dated December 20, 2004 regarding our initial statement on "Procedure for 
Conflicts" (See 
<http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-tf-conflict-30nov04.pdf>).

As discussed, below is a list of questions from the Task Force in order to 
assist you with preparing for our call.  I have tried to capture most of the 
relevant questions, but as you can imagine, I am sure there will be additional 
questions on the call as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair
Whois Task Force 123

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Question 1

As we read points 4 and 5 of the December 20 memo, the principal concerns seem 
to be:

(A)   The provision in bullet iii of Step Three that lays down a "general rule" 
regarding the General Counsel's recommendation (also applicable in Step Four)

(B)    The requirement that enforcement action against a non-compliant 
registrar in these circumstances be taken only with the approval of the Board 
of Directors 

(C)    The expectation that the recommendation to the Board would (at least 
"ordinarily," see Step Five) be made public 

(D)     The allocation of certain duties to the General Counsel rather than 
other parts of the ICANN staff 

Are these in fact your principal substantive concerns with the recommendation? 
If so, these are all quite legitimate questions on which it would be beneficial 
to get the perspectives of responsible members of the ICANN staff.  However if 
there are other concerns it would be essential to surface them as soon as 
possible.  

Question 2

In your letter of December 20, you wrote: "might it be preferable to focus GNSO 
attention on developing improvements to Whois policies that will allow for the 
broadest possible harmony with local regulations?" Can you elaborate on what 
you meant by that and perhaps suggest specific ways in which you believe the 
GNSO might do this?
 
Question 3
Is the subject of WHOIS a policy determination subject to the GNSO Policy 
Development Process or do you view this solely as a contractual matter between 
ICANN, Registrars and Registries?  In other words, does the GNSO have the right 
to recommend policies regarding:

                a)      What information is made available through WHOIS?
                b)      Who has access to such information?
                c)      How such access is obtained?
                d)      What the process should be if a registry/registrar 
believes that an existing policy or new policy on its face violates an existing 
or new national law.

Question 4

If an entity would like to become a registry or registrar, but it is based in a 
jurisdiction that may not allow it to collect or display WHOIS information, is 
it ICANN's position that such an entity would not be eligible to participate as 
an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar.  

Question 5

Has ICANN received any inquiries from any national governments regarding the 
collection or display of Whois information as it relates to privacy protection? 
 If so, what are the steps ICANN has taken to resolve these issues.
 
Question 6

While we understand it is ICANN's position that an entity should not enter into 
a contract that it believes violates its own national laws, what happens if 
there is a change in national law that makes the collection and/or display of 
WHOIS information illegal after the registrar is already accredited?
                a)      What is the process from a contractual point of view to 
deal with such a situation?
                b)      If it is the position that the registrar could no 
longer be accredited, what then is the policy in dealing with the registrars' 
customers?
                c)      What happens in the opposite situation?  For example, 
what if there is a change in ICANN's policies that in essence changes a 
contract midstream, and the changes pose a conflict with a national law?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From:   Paul Verhoef [mailto:paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   20 December 2004 21:12
To:     'dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Cc:     'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Dan Halloran'; 'Barbara Roseman';
'gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject:

TO: Task Force 1/2 co-chair

Dear Jordyn,

I have consulted with our operations and legal staff, and have developed
the following informal feedback concerning Task Force 1/2's draft
recommendation:

1. Registries and registrars should of course not enter contracts that
would be illegal for them to perform.

2. Fair competition rules dictate that registries and registrars should
not be able to gain a competitive advantage by choosing to operate from
a jurisdiction that has purportedly outlawed compliance with part of the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

3. Without careful study, action to address the concerns raised by TF1/2
could open loopholes to compliance with the RAA that would hurt data
accuracy, consumer protection, and other authorised uses of Whois data.

4. The recommendation is drafted broadly, and could be read to require
ICANN to allow violations of the RAA except to preserve stability or
security.  The draft report appears to give registrars and registries
the right to unilaterally breach the RAA, as long as they give notice to
ICANN.  ICANN would be unable to take any reaction to ensure compliance
without formal action by the Board of Directors, following a process
that includes publishing a report that could contain priviliged and
confidential legal advice from ICANN's attorneys.

5. The recommendation posits specific activities for the ICANN General
Counsel's office, and prescribes actions to the GC's office which may be
dealt with more appropriately by policy development, registrar/registry
liaison or ICANN's Global Partnerships departments. The specificity of
actions described also seems like micro-management of ICANN staff
resources in what is supposed to be a policy discussion.

6. In light of the serious concerns meant to be addressed by the
recommendation, and the issues outlined above with the initially
suggested approach, might it be preferable to focus GNSO attention on
developing improvements to Whois policies that will allow for the
broadest possible harmony with local regulations, and then continue to
leave it up to individual companies to determine whether they can
undertake the obligations set forth in ICANN policies and agreements in
light of local requirements?

Thank you for asking for our feedback.  I hope this is helpful to you
and the task force.  I look forward to providing further assistance as
you may require.

Best regards,
Paul


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Director, Law & Policy 
NeuStar, Inc. 
Loudoun Tech Center 
46000 Center Oak Plaza 
Building X 
Sterling, VA 20166 
p: (571) 434-5772 
f: (571) 434-5735 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.