Steve, Thanks for pointing out the overlap. You are absolutely correct on all points. The discussion paper tries to tee up for discussion whether a package of verification elements that did not include notice of a process against an operator could meet the "credible demonstration of legal prevention" threshold. That package might include advice from the relevant GAC member, opinion from the ICANN GC, evidence of enforcement or intent to enforce the conflicting national privacy law, public comment and/or something else. Hope that makes sense. Look forward to tomorrow¹s call. Thanks. Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org From: <Metalitz>, Steven Metalitz <met@msk.com> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:02 PM To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org>, "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: RE: Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Thanks for this discussion paper, Jamie, it should be helpful in framing our discussion tomorrow. As one aspect of the discussion tomorrow we should take a look at the existing procedure, as there may be some overlap with what you are proposing. For example, see section 2.1.2 of the current procedure: 2.1.2 Pursuant to advice from ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee, ICANN will request advice from the relevant national government on the authority of the request for derogation from the ICANN WHOIS requirements. Of course, the touchstone remains ³credible demonstration of legal prevention,² which is the standard adopted by the community and articulated in the policy, which the procedure that we have been asked to review is intended to implement. Steve Metalitz From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Hedlund Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:27 PM To: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting All, Attached please find a short paper for the upcoming call. It is intended to spur discussion on whether the trigger could be modified so long as adequate verification requirements were in place. The paper follows on from contributions to the discussions to date. This is the only proposed agenda item. Based on how the call goes, we can spend the last 10 minutes or so discussing next steps. If anyone would like to add anything to the agenda please let me know. Thanks. Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org