The record cannot be successfully contradicted.  And we spent a lot of time in EWG deliberations on this specific issue. 

Here's the thing. ICANN knows that there are issues with the RAA and national laws, specifically those related to RDDS vs. privacy in the EU theatre of operations.  This is the basis for the waiver process. 

Here's what makes me go 'um....'.  You would have thought that instead of the one-by-one approach to granting waivers for a well-known and thoroughly ventilated area at issue, an institutional response towards generally conserving the efficacy of the RAA would have been devised long ago; something in line towards establishing this 'balance'.

The PPSAI mechanisms to be established helps. But it is a cutout. We can only hope that the EWG's recommendations for this area are embraced since they offer some hope of relief. 

-Carlton Samuels 



==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:13 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

Steve,

I made a point of the google doc that there is a huge imbalance, the final decision-making rests with ICANNS General Council so why can’t we have something approaching parity, why can’t a registrar have counsel advise them and have that sent to ICANNs counsel as the trigger? I still don’t see the national bodies, with power of enforcement, issuing letters saying they intend to enforce the law ever happening. It’s an unreasonable request.

 

-James Gannon

 

 

From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:08 AM
To: 'Jamie Hedlund'; whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org
Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting

 

Jamie and IAG-WHOIS colleagues,

 

In response to Jamie’s paper, and the limited discussion we were able to have about it on last month’s call, please see attached some ideas for an alternative trigger mechanism aimed at meeting the “credible demonstration of legal prevention” threshold set by the ICANN consensus policy on this topic. 

 

I look forward to discussing this on tomorrow’s call, which I will endeavor to attend as much as I can, although it conflicts directly with another obligation on my calendar. 

 

Steve Metalitz

 

   

 

From: Jamie Hedlund [mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:17 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven; whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org
Subject: Re: Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting

 

Steve,

 

Thanks for pointing out the overlap. You are absolutely correct on all points. The discussion paper tries to tee up for discussion whether a package of verification elements that did not include notice of a process against an operator could meet the "credible demonstration of legal prevention" threshold. That package might include advice from the relevant GAC member, opinion from the ICANN GC, evidence of enforcement or intent to enforce the conflicting national privacy law, public comment and/or something else. Hope that makes sense.

 

Look forward to tomorrow’s call. Thanks.

 

Best,

Jamie  

 

Jamie Hedlund

VP, Strategic Programs

Global Domains Division

ICANN

 

From: <Metalitz>, Steven Metalitz <met@msk.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:02 PM
To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org>, "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>
Subject: RE: Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting

 

Thanks for this discussion paper, Jamie, it should be helpful in framing our discussion tomorrow.

 

As one aspect of the discussion tomorrow we should take a look at the existing procedure, as there may be some overlap with what you are proposing.  For example, see section 2.1.2 of the current procedure:

 

2.1.2 Pursuant to advice from ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee, ICANN will request advice from the relevant national government on the authority of the request for derogation from the ICANN WHOIS requirements.

 

Of course, the touchstone remains “credible demonstration of legal prevention,” which is the standard adopted by the community and articulated in the policy, which the procedure that we have been asked to review is intended to implement. 

 

Steve Metalitz    

 

From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:27 PM
To: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org
Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting

 

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


_______________________________________________
Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers