RE: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for recommendation #2

["Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,
 
Just a reminder that to hit our deadlines - and in the absence of people
having a major problem with this - the document is scheduled to go out to
the constituencies for their statements tomorrow, Tuesday 21 June. 
 
Right now, I am taking it that Tim's amended document is the correct version
to be circulated to constituencies tomorrow.  If you have objections to this
or will need more than the next 24 hours to complete the discussion and
revision on this document, please let me know.  
 
This isn't to shut down discussion - just a reminder of our current
schedule. 
 
All the best, Maria

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 4:27 PM
To: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA
Cc: Tim Ruiz; Whois TF mailing list
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for recommendation
#2


Thanks, Steve. 

Do others have views on Tim's proposed modifications?

Jordyn

On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Steven J. Metalitz IIPA wrote:


I have no problem with Tim's suggested changes. I could support them a bit
more enthusiastically if I thought that adopting his changes would make his
consitituency more likely to support the proposal! 

I don't think that we are really creating a precedent to initiate a PDP
whenever a conflict arises with local law. In fact, if a procedure were in
place to address such conflicts regarding Whois (which is all the proposal
now requires), then it seem less likely that a PDP would be needed, since
the existing procedure could simply be adapted for the non-Whois case. 

Steve 



  _____  

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:53 AM
To: Whois TF mailing list; Jordyn A. Buchanan
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for recommendation
#2


I should clarify our position as a registrar, that we do not support any
recommendaton on this topic at all. As has been pointed out to the TF
before, secton 3.7.2 of the RAA already covers this: "Registrar shall abide
by applicable laws and governmental regulations."
Any registrar is capable of contacting ICANN to open a dialogue when a
conflict exists. Whois is just one area where that could occur. We don't
believe a precedent should be set where PDPs get started on every area or
situation where such conflicts might occur. That is not practical nor
achievable.

My recommendations on b. and c. below are made out of concern that this
recommendation might become policy, and in such case we would like it to do
as little harm as possible.
Tim


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for
recommendation #2
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, June 17, 2005 6:31 am
To: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Whois TF mailing list" <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


I suggest the following revisions of b. and c. of the policy portion:
b. Resolving the conflict if possible, doing so in a manner conducive to 
ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values, and the stability and uniformity of

the Whois system;

c. Providing a mechanism for the consideration, in appropriate 
circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an 
exception to contractual obligations with regard to collection, 
display and distribution of personally identifiable data via Whois; and

Article I Section 2. of ICANN's bylaws states in part:
Any ICANN body making a recommendation or decision shall exercise its
judgment to determine which core values are most relevant and how they apply
to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to determine, if
necessary, an appropriate and defensible balance among competing values.
Since this recommendation does not address this in specifics I think it is
important that b. be revised to at least recognize this requirement. Also,
it wasn't completely clear what the phrase *if possible* referred to. 
Part c. as written could be taken to mean that ICANN *must* make an
exception where a conflict cannot otherwise be resolved. That conflicts with
part d., and I don't believe any of us on this TF have the foresight to see
all possible situations where this policy may come into play. This can
easily be clarified by changing *recognition* to *consideration.*
Tim




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for
recommendation #2
From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, June 16, 2005 2:45 pm
To: "Whois TF mailing list" <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Fellow Task Force Members: 

Please take the opportunity to review the attached recommendation and
procedure for resolving conflicts with national laws. If you have suggested
revisions, please submit them as soon as possible (today ideally, but in any
case no later than tomorrow) so that the other members of the task force has
an opportunity to consider them prior to sending the recommendation to
constituencies for their consideration and comment.

Jordyn