Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]

[KathrynKL@xxxxxxx]

Maggie:
We have worked together for a long time, and I have great respect for you.  
No one is trying to sandbag the ISP Constituency here.  It is, in fact, others 
who are feeling surprised and a bit ambushed.  

The issue of notice -- and its interpretation as waiver -- came to light in a 
recent and formal filing of the ISP Constituency.  In the ISPCP position 
paper on Recommendation 2, I read to my surprise:
        "Accordingly, once more conspicuous disclosure is provided and 
consent   
       obtained, the subsequent use of the registrant data for Whois 
purposes,    pursuant to the ICANN contract, is not likely to be in conflict 
with 
local or     national laws." [end of first paragraph under ISPCP position]

No need for Task Force 2's Recommendation 2/Exception for National Laws if we 
pass Recommendation 1??    Not a single person I talked with on Task Force 1 
envisioned this type of waiver from a mere notice!  Yet, your Constituency set 
it out in a formal paper.  The IP Constituency hinted at the same in their 
recent Background paper.

This is a big new issue -- and deserves full discussion.  
Regards, Kathy

Maggie wrote:

> <<I would say that any time an issue is raised after a final
> recommendation that attempts to reverse a task force proposal, without
> advance notice, without adequate opportunity for input by the
> constituencies, and legal opinions of individuals who are not on the
> task force and who did not comment on the recommendation are invoked as
> a basis for reversal, there is bound to be confusion.  So yes, I guess
> we can agree there is some confusion here.  
> 
> 
>