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

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

Marilyn:

On last week's call, we had discussed setting the deadline for  
constituency responses for July 21.

Once we have an agreed upon recommendation, I'll be glad to put  
together an e-mail summarizing the call for constituency statements.

Also--as a reminder to everyone, we have already issued the call for  
constituency statements for Tasks 1 & 2 of our new terms of  
reference.  These statements are due on July 21.

Jordyn

On Jun 20, 2005, at 8:08 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> We need to agree on the version, and on the time frame for  
> Constituency comments, so it is a formalized process. Getting a  
> final document is the first step to that.
>
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso- 
> dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 7:34 PM
> To: Maria Farrell
> Cc: 'Steven J. Metalitz IIPA'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Whois TF mailing list'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for  
> recommendation #2
>
>
>
> 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