Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q14 on privacy laws

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 12, 2009, at 10:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Article X, Section 5, Stakeholder Groups, Item 3
>
>
> Item 3 proposed changes from the document:
>
>
> 	• Each Stakeholder Group identified in paragraph 1 of this Section  
> (link TBD) and each of its approved Constituencies shall maintain  
> recognition with the ICANN Board.  Recognition is granted by the  
> Board based upon the extent to which, in fact, the entity  
> represents the global interests of the stakeholder communities it  
> purports to represent and operates to the maximum extent feasible  
> in an open and transparent manner consistent with prevailing  
> privacy laws and consistent with procedures designed to ensure  
> fairness.  Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters will be  
> reviewed periodically as prescribed by the Board.
> Should the first sentence be reworded to say, “Each of the approved  
> Constituencies of each Stakeholder Group identified in paragraph 1  
> of this Section (link TBD) shall maintain recognition with the  
> ICANN Board.” (Note that I reworded this after the meeting.  I  
> think I was consistent with what was stated but please comment it  
> if is not.)
>
> Q14 Should the change “consistent with prevailing privacy laws”  be  
> retained
> ·      Alternatively: should it be replaced with  “consistent with  
> applicable privacy laws”? or some other wording
I prefer “consistent with applicable privacy laws” as it seems  
clearer than "prevailing", but I am fine with either.   The idea  
should be retained.

Thanks,
Robin



>



IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx