RE: [gnso-dow123] DRAFT redline of recommendation 2

["Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>]

 I am not sure Bret's recollection is entirely correct.  The
transcript(see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00094.html)
indicates the following:

Jeff Neuman Thank you John Jeffrey, thank you Milton Mueller. Anybody
else with a question? Okay that was a quick one; we can go to question
four. If an entity would like to become a registry or registrar, but is
based in a jurisdiction that may not allow it to collect or display who
..., is it ICANNs position that such and entity would not be eligible to
participate as an ICANN accredited registry or registrar? I think this
also gets at the first part of the e-mail, which says that the
registries and registrars should not enter into contracts that would be
illegal from their point to perform. So John Jeffrey or Paul, do you
want to address this?

John Jeffrey I don't know how we could say anything else. Certainly we
would not encourage registrars or registries to enter into agreements
when it's not legal for them to perform. I'm not clear whether that's
the full answer that you're looking for, but that's certainly the answer
that I would propose.

....

Kathy Kleiman John Jeffrey, almost half of the registrars accredited by
ICANN, operate in countries with comprehensive data protection laws. Are
you kind of saying that they really shouldn't be - that if their
country's or if the regions, say the EU, raises real questions about the
Whois policy, which they have, that they really shouldn't be accredited
registries and registrars?

John Jeffrey I think you're making a number of assumptions that weren't
present in my statement.

Kathy Kleiman Okay. Can you help me out?

John Jeffrey Yes, I'm not hear to give advice to registrars or
registries about whether or not to enter into a registrar accreditation
agreement or a registry agreement. But certainly where they believe that
there's a conflict between laws and the contract, then that's an
important issue. I think that if it's clear to you that those things are
in conflict then we would certainly ask for the taskforce's advice on
how to approach those scenarios.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:53 AM
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] DRAFT redline of recommendation 2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 26/04/2005 11:43 AM Bret Fausett noted that;

> 4.    Finally, I recall the General Counsel saying on our recent call
> that ICANN did not require registrars to violate local law. Why 
> doesn't that statement obviate the need for any additional work on
this point?

I haven't yet had a chance to read the TF2 output, but note that this is
the primary driver behind my questions. Assuming that the recommendation
is in scope, I'm not sure that the work at hand is useful if John's
opinion is well-founded. Is there anything in the TF2 work (or any other
work for that matter) that indicates that it isn't?


- -rwr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFCbmPT6sL06XjirooRAoxnAJ97cxtkgazIEH9GbVlFjU5bRSZ4+gCfSroT
hw5JDyCr4x/cafH3wK7vd0M=
=yd8j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----