Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft preliminary report
That’s not exactly what I meant. GAC members come from various ministries. Most of them coordinate with other ministries back in Capitol. Few if any are allowed to issue statements on any subject outside their ministry without coordination across their government. By coordinating with the relevant ministry or agency the GAC member should be able to provide a statement. 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 On 9/11/15, 10:03, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
That’s exactly what I am afraid of. If the GAC members don’t even have enough powers to state that they are/aren’t entitled to provide the statements foreseen under the alternative trigger, I trust we can safely make this bullet point optional.
Thanks,
Luc
On 11 Sep 2015, at 15:24, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Luc,
Thanks for your comments. Happy to clarify the second bullet as you suggest. As for asking the GAC whether each member is entitled to issue support for a request, I suspect we may never get an answer. Their ³authorities² vary widely depending on which part of the government they represent. But it seems safe to assume that if they don¹t have explicit authority, they would be empowered to seek it from the relevant agency within their government.
Make sense?
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
On 9/11/15, 05:04, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Reading the Contracted Party Request Trigger.
The 2nd bullet point should be rewritten so that it is clear that ³affected parties² refer to those contracted parties which local laws conflict with a WHOIS obligation.
I am afraid it could be understood as an obligation to seek written support from all contracted parties.
And regarding the written support or non-objection from the GAC member. Could we as a semi-WG ask the GAC whether they are all entitled to issue such support?
Thanks,
Luc
On 09 Sep 2015, at 23:30, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
All,
Attached please find the current draft preliminary report for your consideration. As discussed on the call, IAG members would have one week to propose any changes including the addition of minority statements. Please submit your edits no later than 23:59 UTC on 17 September 2015. ICANN will then seek comment on the document on 24 September 2015.
Please note some of the larger changes in the document: first, I removed all references to ³consensus.² My colleagues in policy support remind me that consensus only applies after public comment is taken into account. Second, I added James¹s full proposal to a new Appendix 2. Finally, I cleaned up the formatting.
Thank you again for your input and participation. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the draft.
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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> <IAG Draft Report v4 .docx>_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
I fully support what Jamie is articulating. The government reps at the GAC meetings are there to represent their whole of government views. If necessary, they go back to Capitol and seek guidance from the appropriate agency for the authoritative position. ________________________________________ From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:18 AM To: Luc SEUFER Cc: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft preliminary report That’s not exactly what I meant. GAC members come from various ministries. Most of them coordinate with other ministries back in Capitol. Few if any are allowed to issue statements on any subject outside their ministry without coordination across their government. By coordinating with the relevant ministry or agency the GAC member should be able to provide a statement. 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 On 9/11/15, 10:03, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
That’s exactly what I am afraid of. If the GAC members don’t even have enough powers to state that they are/aren’t entitled to provide the statements foreseen under the alternative trigger, I trust we can safely make this bullet point optional.
Thanks,
Luc
On 11 Sep 2015, at 15:24, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Luc,
Thanks for your comments. Happy to clarify the second bullet as you suggest. As for asking the GAC whether each member is entitled to issue support for a request, I suspect we may never get an answer. Their ³authorities² vary widely depending on which part of the government they represent. But it seems safe to assume that if they don¹t have explicit authority, they would be empowered to seek it from the relevant agency within their government.
Make sense?
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
On 9/11/15, 05:04, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Reading the Contracted Party Request Trigger.
The 2nd bullet point should be rewritten so that it is clear that ³affected parties² refer to those contracted parties which local laws conflict with a WHOIS obligation.
I am afraid it could be understood as an obligation to seek written support from all contracted parties.
And regarding the written support or non-objection from the GAC member. Could we as a semi-WG ask the GAC whether they are all entitled to issue such support?
Thanks,
Luc
On 09 Sep 2015, at 23:30, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
All,
Attached please find the current draft preliminary report for your consideration. As discussed on the call, IAG members would have one week to propose any changes including the addition of minority statements. Please submit your edits no later than 23:59 UTC on 17 September 2015. ICANN will then seek comment on the document on 24 September 2015.
Please note some of the larger changes in the document: first, I removed all references to ³consensus.² My colleagues in policy support remind me that consensus only applies after public comment is taken into account. Second, I added James¹s full proposal to a new Appendix 2. Finally, I cleaned up the formatting.
Thank you again for your input and participation. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the draft.
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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> <IAG Draft Report v4 .docx>_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
ON the other hand, we could ask for a resolution from the International Conference of Data Protection Supervisors. Faster and more reliable. Stephanie PErrin On 2015-09-11 10:18, Jamie Hedlund wrote:
That’s not exactly what I meant. GAC members come from various ministries. Most of them coordinate with other ministries back in Capitol. Few if any are allowed to issue statements on any subject outside their ministry without coordination across their government. By coordinating with the relevant ministry or agency the GAC member should be able to provide a statement. 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
On 9/11/15, 10:03, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
That’s exactly what I am afraid of. If the GAC members don’t even have enough powers to state that they are/aren’t entitled to provide the statements foreseen under the alternative trigger, I trust we can safely make this bullet point optional.
Thanks,
Luc
On 11 Sep 2015, at 15:24, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Luc,
Thanks for your comments. Happy to clarify the second bullet as you suggest. As for asking the GAC whether each member is entitled to issue support for a request, I suspect we may never get an answer. Their ³authorities² vary widely depending on which part of the government they represent. But it seems safe to assume that if they don¹t have explicit authority, they would be empowered to seek it from the relevant agency within their government.
Make sense?
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
On 9/11/15, 05:04, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Reading the Contracted Party Request Trigger.
The 2nd bullet point should be rewritten so that it is clear that ³affected parties² refer to those contracted parties which local laws conflict with a WHOIS obligation.
I am afraid it could be understood as an obligation to seek written support from all contracted parties.
And regarding the written support or non-objection from the GAC member. Could we as a semi-WG ask the GAC whether they are all entitled to issue such support?
Thanks,
Luc
On 09 Sep 2015, at 23:30, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
All,
Attached please find the current draft preliminary report for your consideration. As discussed on the call, IAG members would have one week to propose any changes including the addition of minority statements. Please submit your edits no later than 23:59 UTC on 17 September 2015. ICANN will then seek comment on the document on 24 September 2015.
Please note some of the larger changes in the document: first, I removed all references to ³consensus.² My colleagues in policy support remind me that consensus only applies after public comment is taken into account. Second, I added James¹s full proposal to a new Appendix 2. Finally, I cleaned up the formatting.
Thank you again for your input and participation. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the draft.
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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> <IAG Draft Report v4 .docx>_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
I find it highly inappropriate to side step the governmental advisors at ICANN. Perhaps we could get on their agenda for an upcoming meeting and have an exchange of views on this subject. IE: whether or not the GAC reps are capable to speak for their governments positions. ________________________________________ From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:15 AM To: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft preliminary report ON the other hand, we could ask for a resolution from the International Conference of Data Protection Supervisors. Faster and more reliable. Stephanie PErrin On 2015-09-11 10:18, Jamie Hedlund wrote:
That’s not exactly what I meant. GAC members come from various ministries. Most of them coordinate with other ministries back in Capitol. Few if any are allowed to issue statements on any subject outside their ministry without coordination across their government. By coordinating with the relevant ministry or agency the GAC member should be able to provide a statement. 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
On 9/11/15, 10:03, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
That’s exactly what I am afraid of. If the GAC members don’t even have enough powers to state that they are/aren’t entitled to provide the statements foreseen under the alternative trigger, I trust we can safely make this bullet point optional.
Thanks,
Luc
On 11 Sep 2015, at 15:24, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Luc,
Thanks for your comments. Happy to clarify the second bullet as you suggest. As for asking the GAC whether each member is entitled to issue support for a request, I suspect we may never get an answer. Their ³authorities² vary widely depending on which part of the government they represent. But it seems safe to assume that if they don¹t have explicit authority, they would be empowered to seek it from the relevant agency within their government.
Make sense?
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
On 9/11/15, 05:04, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Reading the Contracted Party Request Trigger.
The 2nd bullet point should be rewritten so that it is clear that ³affected parties² refer to those contracted parties which local laws conflict with a WHOIS obligation.
I am afraid it could be understood as an obligation to seek written support from all contracted parties.
And regarding the written support or non-objection from the GAC member. Could we as a semi-WG ask the GAC whether they are all entitled to issue such support?
Thanks,
Luc
On 09 Sep 2015, at 23:30, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
All,
Attached please find the current draft preliminary report for your consideration. As discussed on the call, IAG members would have one week to propose any changes including the addition of minority statements. Please submit your edits no later than 23:59 UTC on 17 September 2015. ICANN will then seek comment on the document on 24 September 2015.
Please note some of the larger changes in the document: first, I removed all references to ³consensus.² My colleagues in policy support remind me that consensus only applies after public comment is taken into account. Second, I added James¹s full proposal to a new Appendix 2. Finally, I cleaned up the formatting.
Thank you again for your input and participation. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the draft.
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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> <IAG Draft Report v4 .docx>_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
I think this is the nature of this debate. With great respect to the alternate views, i also find it highly inappropriate to side step the duly appointed independent data commissioners. So there we are. Stephanie On 2015-09-11 11:18, Heineman, Ashley wrote:
I find it highly inappropriate to side step the governmental advisors at ICANN. Perhaps we could get on their agenda for an upcoming meeting and have an exchange of views on this subject. IE: whether or not the GAC reps are capable to speak for their governments positions.
________________________________________ From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:15 AM To: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft preliminary report
ON the other hand, we could ask for a resolution from the International Conference of Data Protection Supervisors. Faster and more reliable. Stephanie PErrin
On 2015-09-11 10:18, Jamie Hedlund wrote:
That’s not exactly what I meant. GAC members come from various ministries. Most of them coordinate with other ministries back in Capitol. Few if any are allowed to issue statements on any subject outside their ministry without coordination across their government. By coordinating with the relevant ministry or agency the GAC member should be able to provide a statement. 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
On 9/11/15, 10:03, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
That’s exactly what I am afraid of. If the GAC members don’t even have enough powers to state that they are/aren’t entitled to provide the statements foreseen under the alternative trigger, I trust we can safely make this bullet point optional.
Thanks,
Luc
On 11 Sep 2015, at 15:24, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Luc,
Thanks for your comments. Happy to clarify the second bullet as you suggest. As for asking the GAC whether each member is entitled to issue support for a request, I suspect we may never get an answer. Their ³authorities² vary widely depending on which part of the government they represent. But it seems safe to assume that if they don¹t have explicit authority, they would be empowered to seek it from the relevant agency within their government.
Make sense?
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
On 9/11/15, 05:04, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Reading the Contracted Party Request Trigger.
The 2nd bullet point should be rewritten so that it is clear that ³affected parties² refer to those contracted parties which local laws conflict with a WHOIS obligation.
I am afraid it could be understood as an obligation to seek written support from all contracted parties.
And regarding the written support or non-objection from the GAC member. Could we as a semi-WG ask the GAC whether they are all entitled to issue such support?
Thanks,
Luc
On 09 Sep 2015, at 23:30, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
All,
Attached please find the current draft preliminary report for your consideration. As discussed on the call, IAG members would have one week to propose any changes including the addition of minority statements. Please submit your edits no later than 23:59 UTC on 17 September 2015. ICANN will then seek comment on the document on 24 September 2015.
Please note some of the larger changes in the document: first, I removed all references to ³consensus.² My colleagues in policy support remind me that consensus only applies after public comment is taken into account. Second, I added James¹s full proposal to a new Appendix 2. Finally, I cleaned up the formatting.
Thank you again for your input and participation. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the draft.
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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> <IAG Draft Report v4 .docx>_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
I don't recall anyone proposing to side step the data commissioners. If the data commissioner(s) for the relevant jurisdiction(s) are able/willing to provide their guidance, perfect.... problem solved and no argument here. ________________________________________ From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 1:54 PM To: Heineman, Ashley; whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft preliminary report I think this is the nature of this debate. With great respect to the alternate views, i also find it highly inappropriate to side step the duly appointed independent data commissioners. So there we are. Stephanie On 2015-09-11 11:18, Heineman, Ashley wrote:
I find it highly inappropriate to side step the governmental advisors at ICANN. Perhaps we could get on their agenda for an upcoming meeting and have an exchange of views on this subject. IE: whether or not the GAC reps are capable to speak for their governments positions.
________________________________________ From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:15 AM To: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft preliminary report
ON the other hand, we could ask for a resolution from the International Conference of Data Protection Supervisors. Faster and more reliable. Stephanie PErrin
On 2015-09-11 10:18, Jamie Hedlund wrote:
That’s not exactly what I meant. GAC members come from various ministries. Most of them coordinate with other ministries back in Capitol. Few if any are allowed to issue statements on any subject outside their ministry without coordination across their government. By coordinating with the relevant ministry or agency the GAC member should be able to provide a statement. 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
On 9/11/15, 10:03, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
That’s exactly what I am afraid of. If the GAC members don’t even have enough powers to state that they are/aren’t entitled to provide the statements foreseen under the alternative trigger, I trust we can safely make this bullet point optional.
Thanks,
Luc
On 11 Sep 2015, at 15:24, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Luc,
Thanks for your comments. Happy to clarify the second bullet as you suggest. As for asking the GAC whether each member is entitled to issue support for a request, I suspect we may never get an answer. Their ³authorities² vary widely depending on which part of the government they represent. But it seems safe to assume that if they don¹t have explicit authority, they would be empowered to seek it from the relevant agency within their government.
Make sense?
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
On 9/11/15, 05:04, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer@dclgroup.eu> wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Reading the Contracted Party Request Trigger.
The 2nd bullet point should be rewritten so that it is clear that ³affected parties² refer to those contracted parties which local laws conflict with a WHOIS obligation.
I am afraid it could be understood as an obligation to seek written support from all contracted parties.
And regarding the written support or non-objection from the GAC member. Could we as a semi-WG ask the GAC whether they are all entitled to issue such support?
Thanks,
Luc
On 09 Sep 2015, at 23:30, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
All,
Attached please find the current draft preliminary report for your consideration. As discussed on the call, IAG members would have one week to propose any changes including the addition of minority statements. Please submit your edits no later than 23:59 UTC on 17 September 2015. ICANN will then seek comment on the document on 24 September 2015.
Please note some of the larger changes in the document: first, I removed all references to ³consensus.² My colleagues in policy support remind me that consensus only applies after public comment is taken into account. Second, I added James¹s full proposal to a new Appendix 2. Finally, I cleaned up the formatting.
Thank you again for your input and participation. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the draft.
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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> <IAG Draft Report v4 .docx>_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
--------------------------------------------------------
Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
participants (3)
-
Heineman, Ashley -
Jamie Hedlund -
Stephanie Perrin