For Bastiaan and anyone else who was not able to make the call, I made the following points on this issue: 1. I am not crazy about the idea of issuing this advice to the board but, if we are going to do it, let's make sure we a really good reason to raise any of these issues. 2. I could rationalize the Thick WhoIs item as there has been new legal advice in the meantime so we are asking that this advice be given full consideration. 3. I can almost rationalize the Geographic Differentiation" as there seems to have been a commitment by the Chair that this issue would be reopened in Phase 2 and it does not appear to be on the agenda. Also, there has been some new legal opinion. I am not agreeing with the position but as I understand it, this is a request to continue the discussion -- as per a commitment that was made. 4. I am not in favour of the last item -- requesting a redo on the Legal/Natural Persons decisions-- it is already covered, as Bastiaan says, scheduled to be discussed in Phase 2 and our bringing it up in this way seems like whining. There was a suggestion on the call that we could ask for a study. I did say that that might make a difference -- offering something new to the current situation. But then, I also don't see why that request could not be made during the discussions. In summary, I am not challenging anyone's position on the substance of these issues. I am just asking that we *make sure* there is something new, something that takes the advice being offered beyond a complaint on the terms of the report as it currently stands. Marita On 4/4/2019 4:06 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
Thanks a lot, Alan - your and Hadia’s efforts are much appreciated
(I was not on yesterday’s CPWG call so do not know how this was discussed)
It might not come as a surprise, but I do not agree with the advice on ‘Geographic Differentiation’. Both when it comes to the framing/introduction as well as the conclusion. I do not have time to elaborate on this know, but happy to do so later - in the meantime see my previous comments.
I can agree with the 'Thick WHOIS’ concerns - the part on 'Legal/Natural Person Differentiation' seems redundant to me though, this is already covered by rec#17: 'The EPDP Team will determine and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2’
cheers Bastiaan
*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***
On 3 Apr 2019, at 15:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.
Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.
Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. <Advice-DRAFT-v01.docx>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg