RE: [gnso-dow123] RE: Email from the Registry Constituency

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Maria,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
I object to the addition of that paragraph. If the Registry Constituency
now wants to claim that their existing statement&nbsp;was not intended to be 
taken as *broad* support that's one thing (although it is inexplicable why they 
didn't state so month's ago). But adding an additional statement is 
inappropriate at this point and just opens it back up for everyone else to do 
the same.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
Did you read Milton's post on this topic, I think he makes a valid
argument for no changes at all.</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px 
solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [gnso-dow123] RE: Email 
from the Registry Constituency<BR>From: "Maria Farrell" 
&lt;maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Mon, March 05, 2007 11:08 am<BR>To: 
&lt;simon@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;, &lt;gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Dear 
Simon,<BR><BR>
>From what I understand you are saying, the text immediately below
describes<BR>the current state of play:<BR><BR>
-- The Registry Constituency supported the OPoC proposal but finds
that<BR>
proposal's provisions for access to data are inadequate, and does
not<BR>
support those provisions. The Task Force supports the OPoC proposal by
a<BR>
simple majority, but there is no majority of support for the
proposals<BR>regarding access to data. &nbsp;--<BR><BR>
Is this the correct description of the Registry Constituency position?
<BR><BR>
Can you please let me know within 24 hours, i.e. by 6pm GMT+1 tomorrow,
and<BR>I will amend the report immediately. <BR><BR>
As this report was scheduled for a Task Force vote by email from
tomorrow,<BR>
it is imperative that we resolve this issue without any further delay.
&nbsp;<BR><BR>Thanks, Maria <BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Simon 
Sheard [mailto:simon@xxxxxxxxxxx] <BR>Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:02 
AM<BR>To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Maria Farrell<BR>Subject: Email from the 
Registry Constituency<BR><BR><BR>Jordyn, Maria, all,<BR><BR>
Following continued discussions within the Registry Constituency I
must<BR>request an amendment be made to the Executive Summary report.<BR><BR>
In our written statement (which is section 13.4 in my copy but part
of<BR>
section 11? Presumably a bug?) we did express support for the Opoc
proposal<BR>
but felt that it did not go nearly far enough when it came to addressing
the<BR>
question of access to data by parties having legitimate needs for
such<BR>
access. We also highlighted the necessity of Sponsored Registries to be
able<BR>
to determine the eligibility of registration applicants themselves
something<BR>which is not adequately covered by the Opoc proposal 
either.<BR><BR>
It is thus the majority view of the Registry Constituency that to
include us<BR>
in the Executive Summary in a list of Constituencies who 'broadly'
support<BR>Opoc is misleading.<BR><BR>
I thus must ask that the Registry Constituency be removed from the list
of<BR>
those who are 'broadly' in support of Opoc, in the "Summary of the
Task<BR>
Force Policy Recommendation to the GNSO Council" section in the
Executive<BR>Summary.<BR><BR>
For the avoidance of doubt can I also ask, if a paragraph is included
along<BR>
the lines that Milton has proposed, that the three Constituencies in
support<BR>of the Special Circumstances Proposal are actually named.<BR><BR>
Finally, we would like to request that a new paragraph be added,
after<BR>Milton's paragraph, as follows:<BR><BR>
"While the Registry Constituency prefers the Opoc solution to the
Special<BR>
Circumstances proposal it is unable to give it's support at this time
since<BR>
it does not adequately address the question of access to data by
parties,<BR>
such as law enforcement, who have legitimate needs for such access, nor
does<BR>
it adequately deal with the issue that Sponsored Registries must be able
to<BR>determine certain eligibility requirements themselves."<BR><BR>
Please accept my apologies for the delay in communicating this to
the<BR>
Taskforce but I have had difficulties in contacting members of the
Registry<BR>Constituency in the last few days.<BR><BR>Sincerely<BR><BR>Simon 
Sheard<BR>On Behalf of the Registry Constituency </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>