Some suggested edits to the draft report, specifically to the questions posed at section 1.3.2, for consideration. 

 

Steve Metalitz

 

 

 

From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 1:57 AM
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Cc: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org
Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report

 

Thankyou Michele:

 

I shall defer any further comment until after the forthcoming conference calls..

 

Regards

 

Christopher

 

 

On 09 Jul 2015, at 21:10, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:

 

Christopher

 

Your concerns have been raised several times in the past and nobody is ignoring them

 

However, as James Gannon outlined earlier, we have a limited number of options open to us within the scope of this group’s charter.

 

I’m not sure on the exact protocol, but I believe you might be able to submit a “minority opinion” if you wanted to. Jamie might be able to advise.

 

Regards

 

Michele

 

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage

Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

 

From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "cw@christopherwilkinson.eu"
Date: Thursday 9 July 2015 19:36
To: Jamie Hedlund
Cc: Fadi Chehade, Cherine Chalaby, John Jeffrey, Bruce Tonkin, "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org", Alan Greenberg, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Steve Crocker
Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report

 

Hmmm … 

 

1. The "underlying policy" was adopted by GNSO ten years ago. It was already 'out of scope' at the time in the light of pre-existing privacy laws.

 

 

Incidentally, that document does not contain the six pages of trigger-mania that has regaled the IAG discussions. Where that came from is still not clear.

 

2. The IAG mission, as interpreted by the staff, is so narrow as to ensure that many of us are just wasting our time. I suggested at an earlier stage that ICANN staff please write down on one page what are your essential requirements so that we could discuss that. Instead you have issued 15 pages that we cannot endorse.

 

3. The EWG recommendations were published one year ago. Why are you wasting our time on IAG when you still propose (do you?) to initiate another procedure on EWG?

 

4. I am not aware of having expressed any 'desire to restructure the GNSO'. That is a matter for ICANN.

 

Best regards

 

Christopher

 

 

On 09 Jul 2015, at 19:07, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

 

Thanks, Christopher. I invite you to review the scope and mission of this IAG, available at https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/WHOIS+and+national+law+conflicts+IAG+Home. 

 

From what I can discern from your comments, you would like this group to tackle issues that are or could be the subject of policy development. As you know, there is the ongoing work of the EWG to develop a replacement for WHOIS. The GNSO could decide to initiate a PDP to address the policy underlying the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure. Regarding your desire to restructure the GNSO, the GNSO is subject to regular reviews. 

 

All of this is to say that you and the community have multiple opportunities to provide input into all of the subjects that are of interest. But the purpose of this IAG is fairly narrow. It is limited by the policy itself which calls for annual reviews of the Procedure. It does not call for a review of the Procedure’s underlying policy, WHOIS, or the GNSO. Those happen in other community fora. We hope you will actively participate in those as well.

 

Best,

Jamie

 

Jamie Hedlund

VP, Strategic Programs

Global Domains Division

ICANN

+1.202.374.3969 (m)

+1.202.570.7125 (d)

 

From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 12:50
To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org>
Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade@icann.org>, Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby@icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report

 

Dear Jamie: Allow me, for a moment, to abstract totally  from all subject matter and any opinions in this regard, including my own.

 

Nevertheless, if ICANN staff consider that they are authorised to ignore qualified public input simply on the grounds that it is "out of scope" (determined by who?),

then you are well on the way to driving a large wedge between the organisation and the community. 

 

in other proximate and recent discussions the matter of accountability and mutual confidence has been raised. I do not need to go into details.

But if your response is an example of the general attitude of ICANN staff, then we - indeed -  do have a problem. The resolution of which could very well turn out to be far less favourable to the organisation than that which would otherwise be necessary.

 

I invite you and your colleagues to give this issue your serious consideration, soon.

 

Regards

 

Christopher

 

 

 

On 09 Jul 2015, at 17:47, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

 

Christopher,

 

Thank you for your comments. As has been repeatedly discussed within the IAG, the scope of the work is limited to consideration of potential improvements to the existing WHOIS Conflicts Procedure. The existing WHOIS policy, the Procedure’s underlying Policy, adoption of globally, international best privacy practices, and the work of the EWG are all outside the scope of the IAG’s mandate. On our call on Monday it would be appropriate to discuss your point 1 below. As the remainder of your points are out of scope, I would recommend that they not be included in the agenda.

 

Best,

Jamie

 

Jamie Hedlund

VP, Strategic Programs

Global Domains Division

ICANN

+1.202.374.3969 (m)

+1.202.570.7125 (d)

 

From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:21
To: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>
Cc: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report

 

Good afternoon:

 

I would be glad to thank the ICANN staff for their efforts in producing this draft report, were it not that a large part of the IAG-Whois discussion has been totally ignored.

I think it is clear from the record that I could not possibly accept this draft as a basis for further discussion in future IAG conference calls.

 

1. On the basis of the discussion that I have heard in the conference calls and on the mailing list, I suggest that this is at most a minority report.

Before proceeding any further, I would request a formal, nominative, poll of all the Members of the IAG (paragraph 4.2) as to whether this draft is or is not a minority report.

 

2. I request that the basic arguments that have been repeatedly expressed in the group as to why the present whois policy is not acceptable in large parts of the world, 

  be recorded in detail for the benefit of the GNSO and the ICANN Board.

 

3. The report should clarify that what is still blithely described as the "underlying policy" (paragraph 1.1) is inconsistent with privacy law in large parts of the world.

 

4. With regard to the "stability and uniformity of the WHOIS system" (Paragraph 1.1) may I recall that I have proposed that either the burden of proof be reversed to the effect that ICANN must if necessary take the initiative to 'trigger' the procedure, or that ICANN should implement globally, international best practice privacy policy, world-wide.  Until these options have been thoroughly discussed, I do not see on what basis ICANN staff can issue a draft report on the interim outcome of the IAG.

 

5. In this context, may I also request that the IAG - and our readers in the ICANN community - be informed, in our report, as to the procedure and schedule for the implementation of the recommendations of the EWG:

 

 

As I understand it the system proposed by the EWG is aimed at:

 

·         Providing appropriate access to accurate, reliable, and uniform registration data.

·         Protecting the privacy of personal information.

·         Enabling a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and maintaining the ability to contact Registrants in order to guarantee accountability.

·         Supporting a framework to address issues involving Registrants including, but not limited to, consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime and intellectual property protection.

·         Providing an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement needs.

 

Best regards to you all

 

Christopher Wilkinson

 

 

On 08 Jul 2015, at 21:00, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

 

All,

 

Attached please find a draft report for the IAG’s review and consideration. We propose that discussion of the draft be the sole agenda item for Monday’s call. If you have any comments or edits before then please feel free to send those to the mailing list. Thank you.

 

Best,

Jamie 

 

Jamie Hedlund

VP, Strategic Programs

Global Domains Division

ICANN

+1.202.374.3969 (m)

+1.202.570.7125 (d)

<IAG Draft Report v2.docx><IAG Draft Report v2.pdf>_______________________________________________
Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers