[gnso-dow123] Some suggested changes in Steve's draft

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

1. One issue to flag is whether we want to make this a mere
recommendation, or a policy. One possible middle ground is to agree that
it is GNSO policy to have a procedure for reconciliation of conflicts
with national privacy laws, but to make the specific procedure a
recommendation. 

2. Another change I would favor is to make it clear, in the preamble,
that this is a stop-gap measure, the need for which may be eliminated as
the whois data access requirements are changed by the GNSO.

3. In order to address the documentation issue Ross raised, this
document should attach, as Appendices, the Table of conflicts with
national law and copies of the correspondence with data protection
authorities calling attention to the conflicts with national privacy
laws.

4. line 10 of the first paragraph, delete the words "...and to fulfill
their obligations to all elements of the ICANN community." That is too
vague and blanket a disclaimer. The staff made a reasonable case that
over-specific procedures might not mesh well with particular instances,
but they made no such case regarding other, unnamed and unaccountable
"elements of the ICANN community." 

5. Step 3, item iv, I would oppose the replacement of a clear, narrow
criterion for denying exceptions with a vague, discretionary
consideration of "the anticipated impact." 

>>> "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx> 4/24/2005 3:59:08 PM
>>>
 As requested, I have taken a shot at revising the recommendation on a
procedure for handling asserted national law conflicts.  Please see
attached. I used as the source document the Word document attached to 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00174.html,
which I believe is identical to the November 30 PDF document cited in
the agenda for Tuesday's call.