Hello Christopher and everyone, Here are some links and background information on the GNSO policy that we hope will be helpful: * The GNSO Council¹s resolution of 28 November 2005 approving the consensus recommendation of the Whois Task Force that ICANN develop and document such a procedure: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#200511 * The October 2005 Final Report of the Whois Task Force: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm * The existing procedure that is under review and discussion: http://whois.icann.org/en/icann-procedure-handling-whois-conflicts-privacy-l aw Group members may also find the historical and current information compiled and available on ICANN¹s website on Whois to be of assistance: http://whois.icann.org/ Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 13:55 To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting
Thankyou, Jamie. Please add to the agenda the 'Block Exemption by jurisdiction' option as suggested below.
Many thanks and regards to you all
Christopher
PS: In the Discussion Paper, the Links to Policy, GNSO Policy and Procedure, are not active in the copy received. Could you please forward the corresponding URLs.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Agenda and Draft Redline and Notes Date: 15 Mar 2015 20:58:27 GMT+01:00 To: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Cc: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>
Good evening:
Thankyou, Stephanie, for these interesting observations, with which I largely concur. I am also not a lawyer, but as a long-standing participant in ICANN processes, may I observe that these matters have been under discussion for nigh on fifteen years.
1. There is no call for any further public consultation and delay. That has been done. All the relevant information is already available: either through past consultation and communication, or through a review of applicable laws.
2. The primary objective should be for ICANN to align its privacy policy on global best practice. That is not the case today.
3. Failing which, and meanwhile, ICANN should institute 'block-exemptions' to allow Registries and Registrars to automatically conform a priori - in their accreditation contracts - to the privacy laws of their jurisdiction. Obviously it is unnecessary and undesirable to attempt to customise case-by-case each accreditation agreement, whereas the generally applicable privacy laws are already known. The costs of such customisation to ICANN and to the Registries and Registrars concerned are unjustified.
Best regards
CW
On 30 Mar 2015, at 19:26, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
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 <Discussion document.pdf>_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers