- Whois-iag-volunteers - lists.icann.org

FW: Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc
by Maria Otanes June 15, 2015

June 15, 2015

From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:05 AM To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org> Cc: "jeffrey(a)icann.org" <jeffrey(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc Dear Maria: Thankyou, but I regret that I do not understand this approach. I have explained in some detail why I cannot in any way endorse - even tacitly - this document, as is, or as amended. May I suggest that ICANN staff present a one page summary of the absolutely essential and feasible aspects that you would wish to see recommended by the IAG-WHOIS. Best regards Christopher > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> >> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal >> Date: 7 May 2015 20:19:14 GMT+02:00 >> To: "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org> >> >> Good evening: >> >> I have reviewed the 'Dual Trigger' procedure as proposed by James Gannon, for >> which many thanks. >> >> However as I have explained to the recent conference calls, I see no merit in >> spending time on tweaking the procedure for handling eventual WHOIS conflicts >> with privacy and data protection laws when the underlying ICANN policy is >> fundamentally flawed. >> >> I have proposed to greatly simplify and expedite the matter either by ICANN >> adapting WHOIS to international best practice whereby all Registries and >> Registrars would implement a high level of personal data protection and >> privacy, world wide. Or alternatively, to Reverse the Burden of Proof, >> whereby Registries and Registrars would, as their primary default, implement >> applicable privacy and data protection laws in their respective >> jurisdictions. It would then be up to ICANN to initiate a procedure to >> examine whether, in any particular case, there was a threat to the stability >> and security of the Internet. >> >> The present draft document of some six detailed pages is really not workable >> and contains some serious misconceptions. >> >> -How many Registries and Registrars, world-wide, would be potentially >> affected by this procedure? What would be the consequences in cost and staff >> time for ICANN should they all actually apply for exemption? >> (Into how many languages would the procedure have to be translated before it >> could be realistically implemented by all present and future affected >> Registries and Registrars?) >> >> -ICANN's 'contractual WHOIS obligations' (Section 2.1) are not sacrosanct, >> particularly when they are inconsistent with applicable law. >> >> -the reference to ' anticipated impact on the operational stability ' >> (Section 4.1) is rather tendentious. I am aware of no reason to anticipate >> that privacy and data protection law would have any such impact. On the >> contrary, there are a large number of Registries (principally ccTLDs) which >> do respect applicable law. Did ICANN ever question whether they had any >> negative impact on stability, security or interoperability etc. of the >> Internet? >> >> -The reference in Section 5.2 to "ICANN's forbearance from enforcement of >> full compliance " is likely to be perceived as rather offensive. ICANN is >> not in a position to force Registrars or Registries to choose between ICANN's >> contractual conditions and applicable law. On the contrary, ICANN's Articles >> of Incorporation were drafted to ensure that the opposite would be the case. >> >> More generally, there is an underlying issue of fair competition between >> accredited Registrars in the ICANN gTLD system. Should one accept the >> procedure as proposed, one would be effectively placing certain Registrars at >> a competitive disadvantage (a) to undertake an exorbitant procedure to obtain >> a waiver or exemption from ICANN's contractual conditions and/or (b) to risk >> infringement of applicable law vis-à-vis their Registrants and public >> authorities. >> >> Again, such outcome is contrary to the underlying objectives of ICANN which >> was created in the first place to ensure conditions of fair competition among >> Registrars, world-wide. >> >> In the light of the above, I would recommend that the working group proceed >> no further with the so called 'trigger mechanisms' and start again from a >> more realistic and legally compliant position. >> >> With best regards to you all >> >> Christopher Wilkinson On 26 May 2015, at 16:04, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > We have created a Google docs workspace for the Dual Trigger WHOIS proceeding > proposal. Everyone on this email distribution has access to the document and > has the ability to suggest edits or provide comments. If you have any > questions or run into any problems with the Google doc, please let us know. > Thanks. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iNKGTue_yt93gWzRdg7WkGNjIADZzzCveudYMT-… > c/edit?usp=sharing > > Kind regards, > Maria Otanes > _______________________________________________ > Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list > Whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers

4 3

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

Volker I like that option If ICANN disagree with the opinion or have issues with it they can challenge it. They’ve done this to a greater or lesser degree with the data retention waivers. And as Allen Grogan noted on the call a couple of weeks ago, it works pretty well. It might also be useful to see how much support there are for the two proposals. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Volker Greimann Date: Wednesday 10 June 2015 17:11 To: Michele Neylon, Jamie Hedlund, "\"whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>\"@mail-01.key-systems.net" Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Hi Bradley, to be frank, this is getting ridiculous. The opinion of the law firm is everything we have at our disposal and as the law is not written to specific cases, there alsways will be room for interpretation, so "may" may be everything we can get. Law is always subject to interpretation and what has been the accepted interpretation of the law may change overnight, for example if there is a ruling by a higher court. I therefore propose a turn-around: If a contracted party has provided a legal opinion as required by the agreement and ICANN for whatever reason does not want to recognize the findings of this opinion, ICANN may, at its own cost, try to obtain a different legal opinion that states unequivocally that the implementation of XYZ absolutely and under any circumstance does not violate applicable law, and further may indemnify the contracted party in full for any damages, loss, etc the contracted party may suffer as a result of implementing XYZ when it is found to be in violation of applicable law after all. I do not think this is unreasonable at all, after all, ICANN should only be trying to enforce contractual obligations that are not in violation of applicable law. If ICANN makes a mistake in its evaluation, it should bear the legal and financial responsibility towards its contracted parties for forcing to do something they told them was a violation of national law. Steve is entitled to an opinion, but he has no role to play in the contractual relationship between ICANN and its contracted parties. If he believes a legal opinion does not reflect the actual law, he may advise ICANN of this fact and encourage ICANN to obtain its own legal opinion. So essentially, I am asking ICANN to put its money where its mouth is. Best, Volker From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Silver, Bradley" Date: Friday 22 May 2015 17:02 To: James Gannon, "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal James, all: Thanks for your edits, and thanks to Steve for the proposal introduced on the last call. My apologies for not being able to join the last discussion, but I have been able to review the transcript, and the various viewpoints expressed about the proposals on the table. I’ve also reviewed James’ draft and had the following comments: 1. My understanding of the “alternative” nature of Steve Metalitz’s proposal was that it would be an alternative to - not a replacement of –the existing proceeding as outlined in 1.1 of the Procedure. I see that Section 1.1. has been deleted in James’ draft. I support the inclusion of the proposal Steve submitted, as a means to provide flexibility to the trigger so that the affected registrar does not need to be in “receipt of notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action.” 2. Leading on from that, I don’t think it is useful to include as an alternative the possibility for an opinion from a law firm, even with the additional layers of consultation, for all the reasons which were expressed on the last call, and in prior discussions. Even the language proposed points to a lack of connection with the underlying policy, which requires a demonstration by the registrar that is actually legally prevented from complying, not that it might be. 3. A point that has been made a number of times in prior discussions is the need for a certain level of certainty and specificity as to the nature of the actual (not probable or theoretical) conflict, as part of the trigger mechanism – in keeping with the underlying policy. An opinion from a law firm does not meet that requirement, nor would an opinion or statement from a data authority without enforcement authority, or indeed any statement that comes from a body that is not specific to the registrar in question, and the specific contractual provisions and terms of service, as analyzed against national law of the relevant country. I would suggest further discussion about the proposal presented by Steve, and whether there are any ways to address some of the concerns expressed by others within that framework. Bradley Silver Chief Intellectual Property Counsel |Time Warner Inc. 1 Time Warner Center | New York, NY 10019-8016 P: 212 484 8869 | F: 212 658 9293 Am 10.06.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: I’ve joined Adobe, but can’t even listen (forgot headphones in my room) Basically I think most of us support the proposal that James G put forward The IPC people don’t So why not put it to a vote? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Jamie Hedlund Date: Wednesday 10 June 2015 16:03 To: Michele Neylon Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Are you able to join call now? Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Friday, May 22, 2015 at 19:10 To: Bradley Silver <Bradley.Silver(a)timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Bradley With all due respect I would have to forcefully disagree with you. I and others have outlined why we are supportive of the proposal as outlined previously and our position on this isn’t going to change. Discussing it further is futile. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Silver, Bradley" Date: Friday 22 May 2015 17:02 To: James Gannon, "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal James, all: Thanks for your edits, and thanks to Steve for the proposal introduced on the last call. My apologies for not being able to join the last discussion, but I have been able to review the transcript, and the various viewpoints expressed about the proposals on the table. I’ve also reviewed James’ draft and had the following comments: 1. My understanding of the “alternative” nature of Steve Metalitz’s proposal was that it would be an alternative to - not a replacement of –the existing proceeding as outlined in 1.1 of the Procedure. I see that Section 1.1. has been deleted in James’ draft. I support the inclusion of the proposal Steve submitted, as a means to provide flexibility to the trigger so that the affected registrar does not need to be in “receipt of notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action.” 2. Leading on from that, I don’t think it is useful to include as an alternative the possibility for an opinion from a law firm, even with the additional layers of consultation, for all the reasons which were expressed on the last call, and in prior discussions. Even the language proposed points to a lack of connection with the underlying policy, which requires a demonstration by the registrar that is actually legally prevented from complying, not that it might be. 3. A point that has been made a number of times in prior discussions is the need for a certain level of certainty and specificity as to the nature of the actual (not probable or theoretical) conflict, as part of the trigger mechanism – in keeping with the underlying policy. An opinion from a law firm does not meet that requirement, nor would an opinion or statement from a data authority without enforcement authority, or indeed any statement that comes from a body that is not specific to the registrar in question, and the specific contractual provisions and terms of service, as analyzed against national law of the relevant country. I would suggest further discussion about the proposal presented by Steve, and whether there are any ways to address some of the concerns expressed by others within that framework. Bradley Silver Chief Intellectual Property Counsel |Time Warner Inc. 1 Time Warner Center | New York, NY 10019-8016 P: 212 484 8869 | F: 212 658 9293 From:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 7:32 AM To: whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Hi All, In an effort to try and find a common ground, and after recognizing Steve’s input and comments on the call last night that his proposal needs not be the exclusive trigger I have tried to string together some draft language on what I am calling a Dual Trigger process. My changes have focused on step one being the trigger step, my changes to the remainder of the process have been minor, a change of ‘shall’ to ‘may’ in Section 2 to reflect the change in substance of the trigger mechanism. And the addition of Steve’s language to the Consultation period for a public comment period. Steve: I think I have faithfully reproduced your language here please let me know if I changed anything that changes the substance of your proposal. All: I would appreciate comments or input on the proposal. Please turn off tracking changes on formatting under the ‘Show Markup’ pane if you get spammed with changes related to formatting. As always my battle with Word and its method of dealing with formatting revisions continues! Please treat this as a Zero draft for discussion. James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

1 0

Fwd: [governance] Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on ICANN, human rights and the rule of law
by Stephanie Perrin June 4, 2015

June 4, 2015

In case anyone missed this, a declaration of Ministers from the Council of Europe. Speaks to some of our issues with the policy we are trying to implement. Stephanie Perrin -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [governance] Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on ICANN, human rights and the rule of law Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:00:23 -0300 From: Reply-To: TBS *Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on ICANN, human rights and the rule of law* (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 201/at the 1229th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)/ https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Decl%2803.06.2015%292&Language=lanEngli…

1 0

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal
by Silver, Bradley June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Perhaps ICANN staff could provide input on whether it would be feasible to conduct the waiver process within a time frame of 3 months, such as the Google example you refer to. -----Original Message----- From: Luc SEUFER [mailto:lseufer@dclgroup.eu] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:50 AM To: Silver, Bradley Cc: Steven J. Metalitz; James Gannon; whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal I am afraid that would not work either. The moment a DPA has ruled one is breaching the law they will use their enforcement prerogatives, thus fining the party in breach. They sometime may give an ultimatum like in the famous French case with Google (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/us-france-google-fine-idUSBREA071…) but I doubt the whole ICANN conflict resolution process can be conducted and the exemption granted within such timeframe. Therefore leaving no choice to the party between the ICANN rock and the DPA hard place. Best Wishes, Luc On 02 Jun 2015, at 21:56, Silver, Bradley <Bradley.Silver(a)timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>> wrote: Steve, James and all: I agree with Steve that the most authoritative sources of interpretation of national legal frameworks are agencies charged with their enforcement, particularly in the context of a policy which requires a credible demonstration that national laws prevent compliance with relevant obligations. I’ve taken a further look at Steve’s proposal, attached here for ease of reference, and I would like to suggest we focus on whether we a possible way to bridge the gap could be to consider the necessity and feasibility of the requirement that an agency attest to its intention or preparedness to enforce the relevant law against the contracted party unless contractual obligations are adjusted in a specified manner – currently set forth as Paragraph 4. Recognizing that agencies may be reluctant to take on what might be considered a positive obligation to enforce, I think that paragraphs 1 through 3 would provide a trigger mechanism which embodies the best source of national law interpretation, while stopping short of requiring any specific legal action to be commenced – consistent with the underlying policy. This is my own view, and obviously can’t speak for Steve or others who have supported his proposal. Bradley From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:10 PM To: 'James Gannon'; whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Hello James and colleagues, While I appreciate that this is a constructive proposal and that it has been put forward in a good faith effort to find broader support, the problem remains whether it is consistent with the policy that it seeks to implement. That consensus policy states that the trigger to seeking a waiver of the contractual Whois obligations that the contracted party has undertaken is appropriate only when the contracted party “can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying” with those obligations. The issue is whether a written opinion prepared by a law firm at the behest of that contracted party can, by itself, amount to that credible demonstration. I believe that the answer is no, and thus a procedure that allows such an opinion, standing alone, to trigger such a waiver is inconsistent with the policy and should not be adopted. In his earlier response to Bradley, James stated “if a national law is in effect in the jurisdiction of the registrar and the registrar has competent legal opinion that the law is applicable to their business then we must accept that there is an actual prevention.” I don’t believe we must or should accept that, because a law firm retained by the contracted party does not have the capability to enforce that law and thus to carry out the “actual prevention” the policy requires as a trigger. While I agree with James that “we cannot go down the road of assuming that a registrar will not comply with a national law or that a national law will not be enforced,” the law firm legal opinion standing alone does not credibly demonstrate either non-compliance or the realistic threat of enforcement. As stated in the European Commission comments submitted last year, “the decision of granting of an exemption to the implementation of the contractual requirements concerning the collection, display and distribution of Whois data should remain exclusively based on the most authoritative sources of interpretation of national legal frameworks.” Simply put, law firms retained by contracted parties are not “the most authoritative sources of interpretation of national legal frameworks.” The agencies charged with enforcement of such laws are, which is why I proposed the alternative trigger based on a written statement from such a source. I would certainly welcome suggestions for ways to refine this alternative trigger, or to consider additional alternatives that also satisfy the policy’s requirement of a “credible demonstration of legal prevention.” Steve Metalitz From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 7:21 AM To: James Gannon; whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Hi All, Please find attached Rev 1 on the dual trigger, incorporating some small changes to the trigger text that I received feedback on. If staff want to put this into a google doc for feedback please feel free. -James From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:32 PM To: whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Hi All, In an effort to try and find a common ground, and after recognizing Steve’s input and comments on the call last night that his proposal needs not be the exclusive trigger I have tried to string together some draft language on what I am calling a Dual Trigger process. My changes have focused on step one being the trigger step, my changes to the remainder of the process have been minor, a change of ‘shall’ to ‘may’ in Section 2 to reflect the change in substance of the trigger mechanism. And the addition of Steve’s language to the Consultation period for a public comment period. Steve: I think I have faithfully reproduced your language here please let me know if I changed anything that changes the substance of your proposal. All: I would appreciate comments or input on the proposal. Please turn off tracking changes on formatting under the ‘Show Markup’ pane if you get spammed with changes related to formatting. As always my battle with Word and its method of dealing with formatting revisions continues! Please treat this as a Zero draft for discussion. James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= <DRAFT alternative trigger for IAG-Whois (6822949-2).docx>_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. -------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================

1 0

Dual Trigger Proposal
by James Gannon June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Hi All, In an effort to try and find a common ground, and after recognizing Steve's input and comments on the call last night that his proposal needs not be the exclusive trigger I have tried to string together some draft language on what I am calling a Dual Trigger process. My changes have focused on step one being the trigger step, my changes to the remainder of the process have been minor, a change of 'shall' to 'may' in Section 2 to reflect the change in substance of the trigger mechanism. And the addition of Steve's language to the Consultation period for a public comment period. Steve: I think I have faithfully reproduced your language here please let me know if I changed anything that changes the substance of your proposal. All: I would appreciate comments or input on the proposal. Please turn off tracking changes on formatting under the 'Show Markup' pane if you get spammed with changes related to formatting. As always my battle with Word and its method of dealing with formatting revisions continues! Please treat this as a Zero draft for discussion. James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg

8 17

IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call
by Maria Otanes June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

15:00-16:30 UTC http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IAG-WHOIS+Conflict… ---------------------------------------------------------- Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/iag-whois/ ***Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to dial out to your phone. Enter your phone number, + country, phone number*** If you are unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone or Skype: [Select *6 to mute and unmute on the call] International Dial In Numbers: https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=3515982074&num=1-719-… Participant Passcode: 351 598 2074

1 0

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call, June 10th
by Maria Otanes May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Hi all, Due to scheduling conflicts, the times suggested in the original Doodle Poll are not available. We have updated the Doodle Poll with times for the following week, June 10th. Please complete the new Doodle Poll with your availability by Monday, June 1st. The available times are: 15:00 UTC 18:30 UTC 23:00 UTC http://doodle.com/dw4qd2radmxgbfyv Best, Maria Otanes From: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call, June 3rd Hello all, The next IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call will be held on Wednesday, June 3rd. Please complete the Doodle Poll below with your preferred time by Wednesday, May 27th. The available times are: 13:00 UTC 18:30 UTC 23:00 UTC Best, Maria Otanes

1 0

Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc
by Maria Otanes May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Hello all, We have created a Google docs workspace for the Dual Trigger WHOIS proceeding proposal. Everyone on this email distribution has access to the document and has the ability to suggest edits or provide comments. If you have any questions or run into any problems with the Google doc, please let us know. Thanks. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iNKGTue_yt93gWzRdg7WkGNjIADZzzCveudYMT-n 31c/edit?usp=sharing Kind regards, Maria Otanes

1 0

Participation in events
by Ali Adel Ali Ibrahim May 24, 2015

May 24, 2015

Greetings, I am ALI ADEL ALI ALI IBRAHIM , Egypt. Please I would like to ask about whether I can participate in any volunteering opportunities in Europe? Can you help me in that? Please, Don't hesitate to contact me if you need any further information. You are most welcomed ! My regards, ALI ADEL ALI IBRAHIM EGYPT +201141489669 , +201013882265

1 0

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight May 22, 2015

May 22, 2015

Bradley With all due respect I would have to forcefully disagree with you. I and others have outlined why we are supportive of the proposal as outlined previously and our position on this isn’t going to change. Discussing it further is futile. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Silver, Bradley" Date: Friday 22 May 2015 17:02 To: James Gannon, "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal James, all: Thanks for your edits, and thanks to Steve for the proposal introduced on the last call. My apologies for not being able to join the last discussion, but I have been able to review the transcript, and the various viewpoints expressed about the proposals on the table. I’ve also reviewed James’ draft and had the following comments: 1. My understanding of the “alternative” nature of Steve Metalitz’s proposal was that it would be an alternative to - not a replacement of –the existing proceeding as outlined in 1.1 of the Procedure. I see that Section 1.1. has been deleted in James’ draft. I support the inclusion of the proposal Steve submitted, as a means to provide flexibility to the trigger so that the affected registrar does not need to be in “receipt of notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action.” 2. Leading on from that, I don’t think it is useful to include as an alternative the possibility for an opinion from a law firm, even with the additional layers of consultation, for all the reasons which were expressed on the last call, and in prior discussions. Even the language proposed points to a lack of connection with the underlying policy, which requires a demonstration by the registrar that is actually legally prevented from complying, not that it might be. 3. A point that has been made a number of times in prior discussions is the need for a certain level of certainty and specificity as to the nature of the actual (not probable or theoretical) conflict, as part of the trigger mechanism – in keeping with the underlying policy. An opinion from a law firm does not meet that requirement, nor would an opinion or statement from a data authority without enforcement authority, or indeed any statement that comes from a body that is not specific to the registrar in question, and the specific contractual provisions and terms of service, as analyzed against national law of the relevant country. I would suggest further discussion about the proposal presented by Steve, and whether there are any ways to address some of the concerns expressed by others within that framework. Bradley Silver Chief Intellectual Property Counsel |Time Warner Inc. 1 Time Warner Center | New York, NY 10019-8016 P: 212 484 8869 | F: 212 658 9293 From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 7:32 AM To: whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Hi All, In an effort to try and find a common ground, and after recognizing Steve’s input and comments on the call last night that his proposal needs not be the exclusive trigger I have tried to string together some draft language on what I am calling a Dual Trigger process. My changes have focused on step one being the trigger step, my changes to the remainder of the process have been minor, a change of ‘shall’ to ‘may’ in Section 2 to reflect the change in substance of the trigger mechanism. And the addition of Steve’s language to the Consultation period for a public comment period. Steve: I think I have faithfully reproduced your language here please let me know if I changed anything that changes the substance of your proposal. All: I would appreciate comments or input on the proposal. Please turn off tracking changes on formatting under the ‘Show Markup’ pane if you get spammed with changes related to formatting. As always my battle with Word and its method of dealing with formatting revisions continues! Please treat this as a Zero draft for discussion. James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================

1 0