RE: [gnso-dow123] Kathy's review; Points for Revision

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

I know some of Kathy's comments may have been discussed on the call but
I would just point out that the last sentence of the first paragraph of
Step Two is not new, it is the same as what we all approved in November
except that "shall" was changed to "should".  It does not "tell ICANN
which side to take in a negotiation."  

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of KathrynKL@xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:09 PM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dow123] Kathy's review; Points for Revision


Here is my fuller review of the issues.  Thanks to Steve for the first
draft.
Apologies that I cannot join you on the call.  

First, to this paper I would add two short but important appendices:
1.  A summary of the privacy laws in those countries in which ICANN
accredited registrars/registries are based.
2.  Copies of official decisions/correspondance to ICANN from
governmental organizations, including the Article 29 Working Group and
the International Data Protection Commissions group.  As pointed out in
an earlier call, government comments are important.  

Second, here are a few edits where I think meaning has changed from
original drafts:
1.  Section 2, Consultation, paragraph 1 (at the end).   I don't
remember anything in the original recommendation that told ICANN which
side to take in a negotiation. I think it should be ICANN's call whether
to watch, whether to assist with background and explanations, or whether
to get involved in an advocacy role.  In this Consultation section, I
would delete the last sentence of the first paragraph.

2. Step 3, section iv, has been turned on its head by the changes.  The
original recommendation says that absent some stability problem, ICANN
should lean towards allowing the regional exceptions for privacy.  The
current version asks ICANN to find an "anticipated impact" on its Core
Mission.  
       I strongly recommend we go back to the original version ("As a
general rule, the General Counsel shall not recommend any enforcement
action against such registry or registrar unless it finds that
enforcement action is necessary in order to preserve on the operational
stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the
Internet's unique identifier system.") and start the discussion again.

3.  To the end of Section 1 I would add:  "pending a more complete
review of local law and a fuller, more harmonized approach in a future
ICANN RAA." to follow up on the discussion with Ross. 


Regards and good luck, Kathy