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