RE: [gnso-dow123] REMINDER: suggested revisions for recommendation #2
Dear all, Attached is the revised version of the draft recommendation. It includes the clean version of the guidance on a procedure and also Tim's changes to part 2 (b)of the consensus policy recommendation section. I have taken the liberty of suggesting a text change to part 2(c) that attempts to reconcile Tim's concern that the wording implied that the mechanism must always be used and Kathy's concern that Tim's change could imply a never-ending process. The changes to the first section (i.e. the policy recommendation) are marked in red line. As requested, the changes Kathy and Steve had previously proposed for the procedure section have all been accepted.\ Can I ask task force members to let me know within 24 hours if this is an acceptable wording? If further discussion is needed, fine, but if this wording does approach something useful to task force members, then it would be good to get it out to constituencies for their comments. 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 Attachment:
Policy and Advice_ Draft2.doc
|