Well:
(a) I have no brief for the 'Statement of Work' which was prepared without my participation and already introduced significant biases into the IAG, which I deplore. The first document that the IAG reviewed was the Statement of Work. Many edits by IAG members were incorporated into the SoW. If you did not participate it was because you chose not to, not because you were not given the opportunity.
(b) I real that your staff summary does suggest that Appendix 4 should be referred to the next GNSO PDP on Whois. I disagree. There are simple issues here that can be corrected Now. Please indicate which simple issues in your Appendix 4 can be corrected now, that are within the scope of the IAG’s mandate and that are supported by the IAG members.
( c) It is indeed the 'underlying policy' that is flawed. The cure has to be found in the policy, not in the 'triggers' or such like. The IAG was established to review the procedure which includes the triggers. It does not have the authority to revise the policy. That would require initiation of a GNSO PDP.
CW
Dear Christopher,
Thank you for your comments. I am sorry you were not able to provide them in time (see attached email). Please see responses inline. I hope these are helpful. Thanks.
Best,
Jamie
Jamie Hedlund
VP, Strategic Programs
Global Domains Division
ICANN
+1.202.374.3969 (m)
+1.202.570.7125 (d)
Dear Jamie Hedlund:
Thankyou. I have taken note of this publication.
1.I do not agree with the characterisation of Appendix 4 as 'minority' opinions.
No poll of the iAG members was ever taken; I am quite sure that the criticisms of the policy evoked in Appendix 4 are very widely held.
We can consider how to characterize Appendix 4 prior to submitting the final report to the GNSO Council.
2.I have strong reservations about the suggestion to refer the matter to another GNSO PDP. The issues arise in the first place from a flawed GNSO PDP a decade ago.
I have little confidence, that another such exercise would lead to
a more balanced and informed outcome. There was never any intention to "refer the matter to another GNSO PDP.” Rather, the IAG’s recommendations will be submitted to the GNSO Council to review whether
they are consistent with the underlying policy and determine the next steps (see
Statement of Work)
3.Even within the restrictive parameters of the IAG, it was agreed that the existing policy had never been invoked; that should - at the very least - have led the ICANN staff to consider why that is the case. It is quite clear that the various 'trigger'
mechanisms discussed in the report will not facilitate ICANN in conforming to applicable privacy and data protection laws in many jurisdictions. I don’t recall an IAG request of ICANN staff to consider
why the procedure has not been invoked. I do recall during discussion of the Statement of Work that there were widely differing views as to why this is the case. This disagreement led to revisions of the SoW text to remove a perceived bias toward considering
the lack of use of the procedure as evidence that it is flawed.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson