ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx, jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, metalitz@xxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for recommendation #2
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:59:52 -0400

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Maria,&nbsp;</P>
<P>Have you taken the edits received and prepared a final version and circulated it from you and the chair? Did I miss that circulation? </P>
<P>I only saw edits from Tim, but was expecting then a final version to be circulated for last minute agreement by the TF. Again, if I missed that stage of the work, my apologies. </P>
<P>I'm still not clear on what the constiutencies will be seeing and we should all be clear on that. </P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>Marilyn</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P><BR><BR><BR>&gt;From: "Maria Farrell" &lt;maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;To: "'Jordyn A. Buchanan'" &lt;jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"'Steven J. Metalitz IIPA'" &lt;metalitz@xxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;CC: "'Tim Ruiz'" &lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"'Whois TF mailing list'" &lt;gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER:&nbsp;&nbsp;suggested revisions for recommendation #2<BR>&gt;Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:12:02 +0200<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Hi everyone,<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Just a reminder that to hit our deadlines - and in the absence of people<BR>&gt;having a major problem with this - the document is scheduled to go out to<BR>&gt;the constituencies for their statements tomorrow, Tuesday 21 June.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Right now, I am taking it that Tim's amended document is the correct version<BR>&gt;to be circulated to constituencies tomorrow.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you have objections to this<BR>&gt;or will need more than the next 24 hours to complete the discussion and<BR>&gt;revision on this document, please let me know.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;This isn't to shut down discussion - just a reminder of our current<BR>&gt;schedule.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;All the best, Maria<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; _____<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On<BR>&gt;Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan<BR>&gt;Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 4:27 PM<BR>&gt;To: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA<BR>&gt;Cc: Tim Ruiz; Whois TF mailing list<BR>&gt;Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for recommendation<BR>&gt;#2<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Thanks, Steve.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Do others have views on Tim's proposed modifications?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Jordyn<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Steven J. Metalitz IIPA wrote:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;I have no problem with Tim's suggested changes. I could support them a bit<BR>&gt;more enthusiastically if I thought that adopting his changes would make his<BR>&gt;consitituency more likely to support the proposal!<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;I don't think that we are really creating a precedent to initiate a PDP<BR>&gt;whenever a conflict arises with local law. In fact, if a procedure were in<BR>&gt;place to address such conflicts regarding Whois (which is all the proposal<BR>&gt;now requires), then it seem less likely that a PDP would be needed, since<BR>&gt;the existing procedure could simply be adapted for the non-Whois case.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Steve<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; _____<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On<BR>&gt;Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>&gt;Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:53 AM<BR>&gt;To: Whois TF mailing list; Jordyn A. Buchanan<BR>&gt;Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for recommendation<BR>&gt;#2<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;I should clarify our position as a registrar, that we do not support any<BR>&gt;recommendaton on this topic at all. As has been pointed out to the TF<BR>&gt;before, secton 3.7.2 of the RAA already covers this: "Registrar shall abide<BR>&gt;by applicable laws and governmental regulations."<BR>&gt;Any registrar is capable of contacting ICANN to open a dialogue when a<BR>&gt;conflict exists. Whois is just one area where that could occur. We don't<BR>&gt;believe a precedent should be set where PDPs get started on every area or<BR>&gt;situation where such conflicts might occur. That is not practical nor<BR>&gt;achievable.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;My recommendations on b. and c. below are made out of concern that this<BR>&gt;recommendation might become policy, and in such case we would like it to do<BR>&gt;as little harm as possible.<BR>&gt;Tim<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;-------- Original Message --------<BR>&gt;Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for<BR>&gt;recommendation #2<BR>&gt;From: "Tim Ruiz" &lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;Date: Fri, June 17, 2005 6:31 am<BR>&gt;To: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" &lt;jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;Cc: "Whois TF mailing list" &lt;gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;I suggest the following revisions of b. and c. of the policy portion:<BR>&gt;b. Resolving the conflict if possible, doing so in a manner conducive to<BR>&gt;ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values, and the stability and uniformity of<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;the Whois system;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;c. Providing a mechanism for the consideration, in appropriate<BR>&gt;circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an<BR>&gt;exception to contractual obligations with regard to collection,<BR>&gt;display and distribution of personally identifiable data via Whois; and<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Article I Section 2. of ICANN's bylaws states in part:<BR>&gt;Any ICANN body making a recommendation or decision shall exercise its<BR>&gt;judgment to determine which core values are most relevant and how they apply<BR>&gt;to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to determine, if<BR>&gt;necessary, an appropriate and defensible balance among competing values.<BR>&gt;Since this recommendation does not address this in specifics I think it is<BR>&gt;important that b. be revised to at least recognize this requirement. Also,<BR>&gt;it wasn't completely clear what the phrase *if possible* referred to.<BR>&gt;Part c. as written could be taken to mean that ICANN *must* make an<BR>&gt;exception where a conflict cannot otherwise be resolved. That conflicts with<BR>&gt;part d., and I don't believe any of us on this TF have the foresight to see<BR>&gt;all possible situations where this policy may come into play. This can<BR>&gt;easily be clarified by changing *recognition* to *consideration.*<BR>&gt;Tim<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;-------- Original Message --------<BR>&gt;Subject: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for<BR>&gt;recommendation #2<BR>&gt;From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" &lt;jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;Date: Thu, June 16, 2005 2:45 pm<BR>&gt;To: "Whois TF mailing list" &lt;gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Fellow Task Force Members:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Please take the opportunity to review the attached recommendation and<BR>&gt;procedure for resolving conflicts with national laws. If you have suggested<BR>&gt;revisions, please submit them as soon as possible (today ideally, but in any<BR>&gt;case no later than tomorrow) so that the other members of the task force has<BR>&gt;an opportunity to consider them prior to sending the recommendation to<BR>&gt;constituencies for their consideration and comment.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Jordyn<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR></DIV></div></html>





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy