[gnso-dow123] -Voting instructions on "recommendation #2"

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I may not be able to join the call today. 

If there is a vote, please cast my (NCUC's) vote AGAINST any amendments
to this draft as circulated by Maria, and FOR final adoption. 

Thanks,
--MM

>>> "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 06/21/05 1:38 PM >>>
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