RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]
- To: KathrynKL@xxxxxxx, ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]
- From: "Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:54:50 +0000
...and a notion that ISPCP support of adequate notice is interpreted as
advocacy in favor of a contractual waiver is equally surprising to me.
From: KathrynKL@xxxxxxx [mailto:KathrynKL@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:39 PM
To: Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie); ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice
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
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
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.
<<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.