Hi Jamie, Just for clarity can you confirm that its 50% of ‘registrants’ and not ‘registrars’. -James On 13 Jul 2015, at 15:56, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: All, Today’s call is scheduled for 18:00 UTC. For the agenda, staff proposes a discussion of the draft report. In addition, we’d like to propose an additional alternate trigger for discussion: If contracted parties representing at least 50% of registrants in a jurisdiction petition for relief of a WHOIS obligation based on a perceived conflict with a national law, ICANN would investigate whether in fact the WHOIS obligation(s) conflict with national law. ICANN would put out for comment the result of its investigation (which may include outside counsel advice) and consult with the relevant GAC representative (if any). Depending on the outcome of the public comment process, ICANN would grant an exemption from the particular WHOIS obligation to all contracted parties operating in that jurisdiction. This proposal is a hybrid of sorts, allowing for exemptions based on a legal review but having ICANN, a neutral party, responsible for the investigation and legal review. The relatively high threshold for the review (contracted parties representing >50% of the registrants in the jurisdiction) should help prevent frivolous petitions and allow for a manageable work flow. We look forward to discussing the draft report and the proposed alternate trigger later today. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. 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 v2.docx><IAG Draft Report v2.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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

Um, this proposal looks at first glance like a real effort to make a change and is noted as movement in the right direction. But this confection stems from what I consider a wrongheaded view of the problem. This is antithetical of the 'one swallow doth not a summer make' judgment. Forget the number of registrars and registrants that know ICANN is forcing them to become scofflaws. For you will always have stragglers of one or other kind. In my view it is not the registrant or - even the registrars - that should be the starting point. Rather, it is the law. When ICANN knowingly suborn an illegal act under colour of contract, it is wrong. There should be no threshold for how many - whether they are registrants or registrars - who know that they are suborned before ICANN acts. It rather should be whether ICANN is aware that it is compelling an illegal act, and on becoming aware, what is done about it. One can accept that ICANN - the corporation - may not know it is aiding and abetting a scofflaw. But the minute it knows - the trigger! - and from whatever source and by virtue of its role as well as its pretensions in the global space, ICANN has a duty of care to act. It should not wait for any party to seek injunctive relief to do that. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

All,

Today’s call is scheduled for 18:00 UTC. For the agenda, staff proposes a discussion of the draft report. In addition, we’d like to propose an additional alternate trigger for discussion:

If contracted parties representing at least 50% of registrants in a jurisdiction petition for relief of a WHOIS obligation based on a perceived conflict with a national law, ICANN would investigate whether in fact the WHOIS obligation(s) conflict with national law. ICANN would put out for comment the result of its investigation (which may include outside counsel advice) and consult with the relevant GAC representative (if any). Depending on the outcome of the public comment process, ICANN would grant an exemption from the particular WHOIS obligation to all contracted parties operating in that jurisdiction.

This proposal is a hybrid of sorts, allowing for exemptions based on a legal review but having ICANN, a neutral party, responsible for the investigation and legal review. The relatively high threshold for the review (contracted parties representing >50% of the registrants in the jurisdiction) should help prevent frivolous petitions and allow for a manageable work flow.

We look forward to discussing the draft report and the proposed alternate trigger later today. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you.

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