Hello fellow Councilors, As discussed in Abu Dhabi, I’m re-surfacing the previously drafted motion (thanks Marika) and some proposed language for consideration at our November Council meeting. We need to respond to Akram’s letter on this topic. It could either be via a motion or in a letter response. Substantively, here are two options: Alternate Trigger #1: Written Legal Opinion In the absence of a Whois Proceeding, a registry or registrar may present to ICANN a written legal opinion from a nationally recognized law firm or attorney in good standing that identifies any portion of the collection, retention, display or dissemination of any data element specified by the ICANN contract in question violates or is likely to violate applicable law, statute or regulation. Such written opinion shall identify the provision(s) of the ICANN contract in question that are identified to be in conflict and the manner in which the registry or registrar, by fulfilling the terms of the contract, is likely to violate applicable law, statute or regulation. Alternate Trigger #2: Previously granted waiver If (i) it was previously determined that a provision in the RA, RAA or other contractual obligation conflicted with applicable law, statute, or regulation such that ICANN granted an exception under the terms of this Procedure and (ii) the registry or registrar is subject to the same applicable law, statute, or regulation, then the registry or registrar may request the same exception. Such request shall be granted by ICANN unless ICANN provides reasonable justification for not granting the request, in which case the registry or registrar may utilize another trigger. Thanks and regards, Keith