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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the suggested rewording of the first sentence.

I don't agree with retaining the privacy law verbiage. If it
stays, there should at least be more detail around what it 
pertains to so there isn't any misunderstanding about how it 
applies later. I can't see any reason for it myself.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q14 on privacy laws
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2009 12:53 am
To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx


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