Dear Chris, 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) jamie.hedlund@icann.org From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 15:11 To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Public comment summary posted 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.² Rather, the IAG¹s 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 <https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/WHOIS+and+national+law+conflicts+ IAG+Home> ) 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 don¹t 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 On 21 Jan 2016, at 19:40, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
FYI - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iag-whois-conflicts-privacy-2015-10-05... n <http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=3sVClaOwo5uihwlrrc4OfzQsvRRwK8tznNE7... 3dkmBMD294y0lcShPEwmrNzsM2toyG9UUIOJ1V0bxkPpSSZtGRmTVBwq8yzYf9iKnwMdGMWESNCpoV iJLruhWi24Mix_u6a2PqF3vslNNtSRbhxJPbaBpZk4DC8jbmALa5nMrRXo0eqnz-2B9Ps9xJPFJNX0 UL-2F-2FJI3KnlPQtLax4sDAMUOleyokUItB1ySUKv0eZQ0yVNOU4CPsXxolzadQWFEIB3jt4FBhYc k7cuW-2B60WUNIUfplmEQLN49Pg8gnyn4WN5REwmeLm3WVCEgIuWpHjpntSOaUoK52mlUftmtKfbM8 YQXuDh7vnDtn9gvVW0m9e1i8x7DYS-2FFnIAXqGTOXZSAc0qGjFopv0nIpMbX48Ukjmi36xTL31Ys3 g94MzUCnwDSyh7dcY1VG2grcgOjjhYKxmTPChyu0R0URCtmlkx5eVp88UVc80ookOrqjXjBDJym3d6 Tp6H-2Fhiyi-2BzVodf3oSYJtLUjEPVITQayq3DJ1X4MLfqCHRHctXbtcAljAIgqSS-2BbpDR-2ByJ EXYJifUdggvzwFu06pV3Rui-2Bkab0a-2FbweifS0RVMZdQhRhBLd8um4WIYn-2BdV2DgT23U5DKUM 44nn>
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 _______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers