RE: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Maria and Mariyln:
The other proposed change is to make it a GNSO policy to "facilitate
reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy
laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract,"
but to make the specific PROCEDURE only a recommendation.

Tim Ruiz also needs to keep in mind that the procedure is a
recommendation, not a requirement.
--MM

>>> "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 5/3/2005 9:25:45 AM >>>
Hi Marilyn,

It looks to me as if the main substantive change is to reinsert the
text
following:

"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 the operational stability,
reliability, security, or global interoperability of the Internet's
unique
identifier system."

There are several other changes but they seem typographical to me.

Maria   

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:10 PM
To: Steve Metalitz; owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx; Tim Ruiz; Tom Keller;
gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft

Doing a comparison on my blackberry is an impossibility. :-(

Can you explain the differences, perhaps, or Tom or Maroa, as staff,
prhaps
would do that?
-----Original Message-----
From: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:58:31 
To:"Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tom Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>,
<gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft

For some reason Tom's redline does not show that he reinserted this
language
which my draft had proposed to delete, but Tim is correct about this. 
The
redline is misleading in some other ways as well so you may wish to
compare
it with the proposal circulated last week, which I attach. 

Steve Metalitz

  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]

On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 7:09 AM
To: Tom Keller; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft

Tom,

This is a serious step backwards from Steve's draft. In particular it
reinserts the following:

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 the operational stability,
reliability, security, or global interoperability of the Internet's
unique
identifier system.

As I have said before, and I think ICANN Counsel has as well, that
"general
rule" is wholly inappropriate. It also attempts to require ICANN to
ignore
all but one of its Core Values in this context.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]

On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 2:58 AM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft


Hello,

please find my hybrid version of Steves version attached.

Best,

tom



Regards,
Marilyn Cade