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