[gnso-dow123] RE: recommendation #2

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

 Retracing our steps regarding this recommendation (conflicts with
national law), which is the other item on our agenda tomorrow, I
believe, we also need to resolve what we think about Tom Keller's
proposed changes, which are summarized in the postings below.  Tim and
Milton have already weighed on on this but the TF as a whole has to make
a decision so that we can move forward.  For what it is worth I agree
with Tim on this.  

Steve Metalitz   

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:34 AM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Marilyn Cade;
maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx; Steven J. Metalitz
IIPA; Tom Keller
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft


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