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