RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed change #7

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think that the BC can agree, either, Milton, with the "presumption"
as stated. :-) 

However, it could be that a sunset might be needed for "exceptions", but
wouldn't that be handled through consensus policy changes? Thus in the
exceptions language that the GC develops, it will be important to note that
at a future date, consensus policy may once again replace the exception that
has been developed in this instance. I am not sure we thought of that and
don't recommend it for our language, but suggest it is part of the
"implementation" work needed. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Steve Metalitz
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:12 PM
To: Milton Mueller; jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed change #7

We make no such presumption.   

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:06 PM
To: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Proposed change #7

NCUC would suggest replacing this change with a Sunset provision. In
other words, the whole procedure should go out of existence after three
years (time period subject to discussion). As the title suggests, an
"exceptions" procedure presumes that Whois policy as a whole is out of
whack with privacy law, but ongoing reform of Whois might change this.
Therefore, there may be no need for an exceptions procedure down the
road. 

>>> "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 08/30/05 5:22 PM >>>
This change is from the ISPCP.  This change would add a new Step Six to
the guidance on the procedure.  The new section would read as
follows:

Step Six:  Ongoing Review

With substantial input from the relevant registries or registrars,
together with all constituencies, there should be a review of the pros
and cons of how the process worked, and the development of revisions
designed to make the process better and more efficient, should the need
arise again at some point in the future.