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

[KathrynKL@xxxxxxx]

OK, I can support b.  I appreciate Tim's explanation and it makes sense.

I do not, however, support the change to C, and the reason is one of 
symantics.
"Recognition" is a decision; "Consideration" is a process.  

I am not saying that ICANN has to accept the change demanded by a foreign 
government, but I do believe it must make some decision.  "To provide a 
mechanism 
for the consideration" seems to invite the ongoing dialogue for which ICANN 
is so famous.  We can consider and talk at any length.... But "To provide a 
mechanism for the recognition" -- bounded by the huge limitations of "b" and 
"d" 
--- actually creates a path out of dialogue and to decision.

I do not see "c" conflicted with "d" -- only being bound by it.  Staff 
remains the final decision-makers.

Again, in my objection to the change of wording in "c", I see and appreciate 
Tim's point.  I just think that the current wording allows for the scope he 
seeks.  The new wording changes it -- and introduces ambiguities anew.  

Regards, Kathy

<< 
> Revised b.: 
> 
>  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;
> 
> 
> 
> Reason:
> 
>  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. 
> 
>  
> 
> Revised c.:
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> Reason:
> 
>  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.*
> 
>   
> 
>