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

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maria:

As Marilyn and Kathy have suggested, can you please circulate a  
revised draft?  Since I haven't heard any objection to Tim's edits,  
the revised draft would include his proposed changes as well as a  
clean version of the procedure document (since there have been no  
comments regarding that document).

Assuming no additional issues are raised, I would encourage task  
force members to take the new document back to their constituencies  
for formal comment.  I don't think there is additional action  
required by the staff, as I believe the PDP indicates that the  
communication between task force and the constituencies is handled by  
the task force representatives.

Obviously, we all need to agree upon the version to be transmitted to  
the constituencies for comment.  Hopefully we can finalize this  
tomorrow.

Jordyn

On Jun 20, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:

> 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