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 +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org
Yes, I would really appreciate hearing the rationale for ignoring all the letters from the Article 29 working group. Could we add that to the agenda please? Thanks! Stephanie Perrin On 2015-03-30 13:26, Jamie Hedlund 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
_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
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
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
Christopher and Stephanie, We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM 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
Dear Jamie: Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone needs to leave the call early. Best regards CW On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Christopher and Stephanie,
We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM 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
Christopher, Thanks and understood. Before there can be consensus on ³Block exemption by jurisdiction² it would seem that the IAG would first need to agree on what can trigger a request for an exemption. When that discussion is exhausted it would make sense to discuss your proposal. 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 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM 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 Dear Jamie: Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone needs to leave the call early. Best regards CW On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Christopher and Stephanie,
We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM 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
Jamie: One should understand that one is not looking for a 'trigger' atall. Rather, for spontaneous conformance, by ICANN, to applicable law. CW On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:49, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Christopher,
Thanks and understood. Before there can be consensus on “Block exemption by jurisdiction” it would seem that the IAG would first need to agree on what can trigger a request for an exemption. When that discussion is exhausted it would make sense to discuss your proposal. 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
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM 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
Dear Jamie:
Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone needs to leave the call early.
Best regards
CW
On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Christopher and Stephanie,
We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM 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
Thanks, Christopher. Kindly refer to the mission and scope for a description of this IAG's mandate. Best, Jamie On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Jamie: One should understand that one is not looking for a 'trigger' atall. Rather, for spontaneous conformance, by ICANN, to applicable law. CW On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:49, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Christopher, Thanks and understood. Before there can be consensus on "Block exemption by jurisdiction" it would seem that the IAG would first need to agree on what can trigger a request for an exemption. When that discussion is exhausted it would make sense to discuss your proposal. 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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Dear Jamie: Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone needs to leave the call early. Best regards CW On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Christopher and Stephanie, We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>> Cc: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> <Discussion document.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
Dear Jamie: Thankyou. I see in the mission and scope: <<As part of its deliberations, the IAG should, at a minimum, consider the following issues that were highlighted in the recent Report of Public Comments on this topic. … etc.>> I suggest that this gives the IAG-WHOIS enough scope to address some of the real issues in addition to the specific points that have been identified to date in that document. Regards CW On 31 Mar 2015, at 00:21, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Christopher. Kindly refer to the mission and scope for a description of this IAG's mandate.
Best, Jamie
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Jamie: One should understand that one is not looking for a 'trigger' atall. Rather, for spontaneous conformance, by ICANN, to applicable law.
CW
On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:49, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Christopher,
Thanks and understood. Before there can be consensus on “Block exemption by jurisdiction” it would seem that the IAG would first need to agree on what can trigger a request for an exemption. When that discussion is exhausted it would make sense to discuss your proposal. 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
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM 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
Dear Jamie:
Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone needs to leave the call early.
Best regards
CW
On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Christopher and Stephanie,
We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM 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
Thanks again, Christopher. There is of course no limit to what the IAG may discuss but there is a limit as to what the IAG may do. What you seem to advocate is not a change in the procedure (within the IAG¹s mandate) but a change in the policy (beyond the IAG¹s mandate). While the IAG could recommend that the GNSO revisit the underlying policy, the IAG does not have the authority to change it. Please let me know if that¹s not clear. 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 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 3:49 AM 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 Dear Jamie: Thankyou. I see in the mission and scope: <<As part of its deliberations, the IAG should, at a minimum, consider the following issues that were highlighted in the recent Report of Public Comments on this topic. etc.>> I suggest that this gives the IAG-WHOIS enough scope to address some of the real issues in addition to the specific points that have been identified to date in that document. Regards CW On 31 Mar 2015, at 00:21, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Christopher. Kindly refer to the mission and scope for a description of this IAG's mandate.
Best, Jamie
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Jamie: One should understand that one is not looking for a 'trigger' atall. Rather, for spontaneous conformance, by ICANN, to applicable law.
CW
On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:49, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Christopher,
Thanks and understood. Before there can be consensus on ³Block exemption by jurisdiction² it would seem that the IAG would first need to agree on what can trigger a request for an exemption. When that discussion is exhausted it would make sense to discuss your proposal. 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
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM 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
Dear Jamie:
Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone needs to leave the call early.
Best regards
CW
On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Christopher and Stephanie,
We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM 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
Hello everyone, To follow up on Jamie¹s note and as some IAG members may not be familiar with ICANN¹s policy development processes, I¹d like to clarify that revisiting the underlying Policy in this case would be a matter within the remit of the GNSO. This is because the GNSO is the body responsible for developing substantive policies concerning generic top-level domains (gTLDs), a role that is specified in the ICANN Bylaws. As Jamie has mentioned, it is open to the IAG to recommend that the GNSO consider reviewing the Policy, but the actual decision whether to initiate such a review would be a decision taken by the GNSO Council. The Council makes that decision after a series of prescribed steps are taken, a process designed to ensure that the issue has been fully scoped, and community input provided and considered (more details on the process are in the GNSO¹s PDP Manual, among other governing documents: http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-13nov14-en.pdf). In the present case, it may be helpful to note that the Policy adopted by the GNSO Council in late 2005 appears to be relatively general in nature. As such, making quite a few changes to the current procedure could still fall within the scope of the Policy. Before determining whether a review of the Policy itself is desirable, therefore, the IAG may wish to consider whether (and if so, how) the current procedure ought to be changed to suit current needs. The earlier paper that was put out for public comment, the subsequent report of public comments received and the discussion paper circulated by Jamie are intended to assist the IAG with this task. For your reference, the current Policy reads as follows: "In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should: * Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. * Create goals for the procedure which include: >> Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest >> appropriate juncture; >> Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's >> Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois >> system; >> Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances >> where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to >> contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific >> conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of >> personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and >> Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular >> factual situations as they arise. * The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure.² I hope this background is helpful. Thanks and 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: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 08:16 To: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting > Thanks again, Christopher. There is of course no limit to what the IAG may > discuss but there is a limit as to what the IAG may do. What you seem to > advocate is not a change in the procedure (within the IAG¹s mandate) but a > change in the policy (beyond the IAG¹s mandate). While the IAG could recommend > that the GNSO revisit the underlying policy, the IAG does not have the > authority to change it. Please let me know if that¹s not clear. 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 > > From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 3:49 AM > 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 > > Dear Jamie: > > Thankyou. I see in the mission and scope: > > <<As part of its deliberations, the IAG should, at a minimum, consider the > following issues that were highlighted in the recent Report of Public Comments > on this topic. etc.>> > > I suggest that this gives the IAG-WHOIS enough scope to address some of the > real issues in addition to the specific points that have been identified to > date in that document. > > Regards > > CW > > > On 31 Mar 2015, at 00:21, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: > >> Thanks, Christopher. Kindly refer to the mission and scope for a description >> of this IAG's mandate. >> >> Best, >> Jamie >> >> >> >> On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Wilkinson >> <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: >> >>> Jamie: One should understand that one is not looking for a 'trigger' atall. >>> Rather, for spontaneous conformance, by ICANN, to applicable law. >>> >>> CW >>> >>> >>> On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:49, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Christopher, >>>> >>>> Thanks and understood. Before there can be consensus on ³Block exemption by >>>> jurisdiction² it would seem that the IAG would first need to agree on what >>>> can trigger a request for an exemption. When that discussion is exhausted >>>> it would make sense to discuss your proposal. 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 >>>> >>>> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> >>>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Dear Jamie: >>>> >>>> Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone >>>> needs to leave the call early. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> CW >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Christopher and Stephanie, >>>>> >>>>> We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> >>>>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >
Thanks very much, Mary and Jamie, for the clarification. I am an independent arbitrator with experience in dealing with domain name disputes for many years. Please accept my apologies for missing the IAG conference calls due largely to the different time-zones that such calls were arranged. But I have followed closely the discussions by our IAG members. I share the value of the gTLD WHOIS public service. Leaving the policy review as advocated by some IAG members aside, I think we have to be realistic with the current system in place. First, the ICANN contract provision obligates Registrars or Registries to collect, display and distribute personal data of domain name registrants via the gTLD WHOIS service. Second, certain local/national personal data privacy legislation might prohibit a Registrar or Registry to comply with this contractual obligation in full or in part. Third, IAG was asked to develop a procedure for dealing with such situation. That has led IAG to consider the question of the “triggers”. Various triggers have been discussed and identified by IAG in the previous conference calls. These include a legal opinion given by local Counsel, a preliminary ruling by the local/national data privacy authority, enforcement notice served on the registrar/registry I think the key consideration is how a Registrar/Registry can discharge the burden to “credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service.” This burden of proof is clearly on the civil standard of balance of probabilities. In my view, the “credibly demonstrate” requirement does not alter this standard of proof. It simply requires the registrar/registry to act in good faith to demonstrate a prima facie case. Obviously, it is open to ICANN as the other contractual party to rebut if a prima facie case has been shown. On this analysis, I am in favour of a wide but non-exhaustive list of circumstances that would give rise to a “trigger”. Kind regards, Raymond ___________________________________________________ RAYMOND HO Independent Arbitrator Suite 21, Level 4, 401-3, Cyberport 1, 100 Cyberport Road, Hong Kong. Email: arbitrator@raymondho.com From: Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 6:40 AM Cc: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Hello everyone, To follow up on Jamie’s note and as some IAG members may not be familiar with ICANN’s policy development processes, I’d like to clarify that revisiting the underlying Policy in this case would be a matter within the remit of the GNSO. This is because the GNSO is the body responsible for developing substantive policies concerning generic top-level domains (gTLDs), a role that is specified in the ICANN Bylaws. As Jamie has mentioned, it is open to the IAG to recommend that the GNSO consider reviewing the Policy, but the actual decision whether to initiate such a review would be a decision taken by the GNSO Council. The Council makes that decision after a series of prescribed steps are taken, a process designed to ensure that the issue has been fully scoped, and community input provided and considered (more details on the process are in the GNSO’s PDP Manual, among other governing documents: http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-13nov14-en.pdf). In the present case, it may be helpful to note that the Policy adopted by the GNSO Council in late 2005 appears to be relatively general in nature. As such, making quite a few changes to the current procedure could still fall within the scope of the Policy. Before determining whether a review of the Policy itself is desirable, therefore, the IAG may wish to consider whether (and if so, how) the current procedure ought to be changed to suit current needs. The earlier paper that was put out for public comment, the subsequent report of public comments received and the discussion paper circulated by Jamie are intended to assist the IAG with this task. For your reference, the current Policy reads as follows: "In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should: a.. Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. a.. Create goals for the procedure which include: Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. a.. The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure.” I hope this background is helpful. Thanks and 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: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 08:16 To: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Thanks again, Christopher. There is of course no limit to what the IAG may discuss but there is a limit as to what the IAG may do. What you seem to advocate is not a change in the procedure (within the IAG’s mandate) but a change in the policy (beyond the IAG’s mandate). While the IAG could recommend that the GNSO revisit the underlying policy, the IAG does not have the authority to change it. Please let me know if that’s not clear. 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 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 3:49 AM 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 Dear Jamie: Thankyou. I see in the mission and scope: <<As part of its deliberations, the IAG should, at a minimum, consider the following issues that were highlighted in the recent Report of Public Comments on this topic. … etc.>> I suggest that this gives the IAG-WHOIS enough scope to address some of the real issues in addition to the specific points that have been identified to date in that document. Regards CW On 31 Mar 2015, at 00:21, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Christopher. Kindly refer to the mission and scope for a description of this IAG's mandate. Best, Jamie On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Jamie: One should understand that one is not looking for a 'trigger' atall. Rather, for spontaneous conformance, by ICANN, to applicable law. CW On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:49, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Christopher, Thanks and understood. Before there can be consensus on “Block exemption by jurisdiction” it would seem that the IAG would first need to agree on what can trigger a request for an exemption. When that discussion is exhausted it would make sense to discuss your proposal. 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 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM 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 Dear Jamie: Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone needs to leave the call early. Best regards CW On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Christopher and Stephanie, We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
Hello everyone, I have just taken a quick look at the “latest” ICANN approved form of Registry Agreement for the new gTLD (attached). If I may, I just wish to highlight clause 2.5 on page 3 regarding “Publication of Registration Data” that provides “Registry Operator shall provide public access to registration data in accordance with Specification 4 attached hereto (“Specification 4”)[ at page 61]; and clause 7.6 regarding “Amendments and Waivers” on pages 23-29 of this Agreement that might be of interest to us. Kind regards, Raymond From: Raymond HO Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:54 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Thanks very much, Mary and Jamie, for the clarification. I am an independent arbitrator with experience in dealing with domain name disputes for many years. Please accept my apologies for missing the IAG conference calls due largely to the different time-zones that such calls were arranged. But I have followed closely the discussions by our IAG members. I share the value of the gTLD WHOIS public service. Leaving the policy review as advocated by some IAG members aside, I think we have to be realistic with the current system in place. First, the ICANN contract provision obligates Registrars or Registries to collect, display and distribute personal data of domain name registrants via the gTLD WHOIS service. Second, certain local/national personal data privacy legislation might prohibit a Registrar or Registry to comply with this contractual obligation in full or in part. Third, IAG was asked to develop a procedure for dealing with such situation. That has led IAG to consider the question of the “triggers”. Various triggers have been discussed and identified by IAG in the previous conference calls. These include a legal opinion given by local Counsel, a preliminary ruling by the local/national data privacy authority, enforcement notice served on the registrar/registry I think the key consideration is how a Registrar/Registry can discharge the burden to “credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service.” This burden of proof is clearly on the civil standard of balance of probabilities. In my view, the “credibly demonstrate” requirement does not alter this standard of proof. It simply requires the registrar/registry to act in good faith to demonstrate a prima facie case. Obviously, it is open to ICANN as the other contractual party to rebut if a prima facie case has been shown. On this analysis, I am in favour of a wide but non-exhaustive list of circumstances that would give rise to a “trigger”. Kind regards, Raymond ___________________________________________________ RAYMOND HO Independent Arbitrator Suite 21, Level 4, 401-3, Cyberport 1, 100 Cyberport Road, Hong Kong. Email: arbitrator@raymondho.com From: Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 6:40 AM Cc: whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Hello everyone, To follow up on Jamie’s note and as some IAG members may not be familiar with ICANN’s policy development processes, I’d like to clarify that revisiting the underlying Policy in this case would be a matter within the remit of the GNSO. This is because the GNSO is the body responsible for developing substantive policies concerning generic top-level domains (gTLDs), a role that is specified in the ICANN Bylaws. As Jamie has mentioned, it is open to the IAG to recommend that the GNSO consider reviewing the Policy, but the actual decision whether to initiate such a review would be a decision taken by the GNSO Council. The Council makes that decision after a series of prescribed steps are taken, a process designed to ensure that the issue has been fully scoped, and community input provided and considered (more details on the process are in the GNSO’s PDP Manual, among other governing documents: http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-13nov14-en.pdf). In the present case, it may be helpful to note that the Policy adopted by the GNSO Council in late 2005 appears to be relatively general in nature. As such, making quite a few changes to the current procedure could still fall within the scope of the Policy. Before determining whether a review of the Policy itself is desirable, therefore, the IAG may wish to consider whether (and if so, how) the current procedure ought to be changed to suit current needs. The earlier paper that was put out for public comment, the subsequent report of public comments received and the discussion paper circulated by Jamie are intended to assist the IAG with this task. For your reference, the current Policy reads as follows: "In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should: a.. Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. a.. Create goals for the procedure which include: Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. a.. The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure.” I hope this background is helpful. Thanks and 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: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 08:16 To: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting Thanks again, Christopher. There is of course no limit to what the IAG may discuss but there is a limit as to what the IAG may do. What you seem to advocate is not a change in the procedure (within the IAG’s mandate) but a change in the policy (beyond the IAG’s mandate). While the IAG could recommend that the GNSO revisit the underlying policy, the IAG does not have the authority to change it. Please let me know if that’s not clear. 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 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 3:49 AM 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 Dear Jamie: Thankyou. I see in the mission and scope: <<As part of its deliberations, the IAG should, at a minimum, consider the following issues that were highlighted in the recent Report of Public Comments on this topic. … etc.>> I suggest that this gives the IAG-WHOIS enough scope to address some of the real issues in addition to the specific points that have been identified to date in that document. Regards CW On 31 Mar 2015, at 00:21, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Christopher. Kindly refer to the mission and scope for a description of this IAG's mandate. Best, Jamie On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Jamie: One should understand that one is not looking for a 'trigger' atall. Rather, for spontaneous conformance, by ICANN, to applicable law. CW On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:49, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Christopher, Thanks and understood. Before there can be consensus on “Block exemption by jurisdiction” it would seem that the IAG would first need to agree on what can trigger a request for an exemption. When that discussion is exhausted it would make sense to discuss your proposal. 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 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM 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 Dear Jamie: Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone needs to leave the call early. Best regards CW On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Christopher and Stephanie, We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
Indeed, that is certainly what I think. Perhaps that requires revisiting the policy, which is, after all, ten years old? Stephanie Perrin On 2015-03-30 18:00, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Jamie:One should understand that one is not looking for a 'trigger' atall. Rather, for spontaneous conformance, by ICANN, to applicable law.
CW
On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:49, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
Christopher,
Thanks and understood. Before there can be consensus on “Block exemption by jurisdiction” it would seem that the IAG would first need to agree on what can trigger a request for an exemption. When that discussion is exhausted it would make sense to discuss your proposal. 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 <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting
Dear Jamie:
Thankyou. Noted. I suggest we take AOB first on the agenda, in case anyone needs to leave the call early.
Best regards
CW
On 30 Mar 2015, at 21:09, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
Christopher and Stephanie,
We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting. 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 <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>> *Cc: *Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> <Discussion document.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
_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
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 +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>
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 tomorrow¹s call. 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 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 ³credible demonstration of legal prevention,² 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 +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org
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 +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> From: <Metalitz>, Steven Metalitz <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:02 PM To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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 +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>
Thanks, Steven. I respectfully invite you to consider the goals for the procedure as highlighted in resolution 20051128-05 below: “20051128-05 The GNSO votes in favour of the following consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should: Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. Create goals for the procedure which include: Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. As regards the applicable contractual provisions regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, I think it might be helpful to review the standard Registry Agreement https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-agreements-en, in particular, clause 2.18 and Specification 4 reproduced below: 2.18 Personal Data. Registry Operator shall (i) notify each ICANN-accredited registrar that is a party to the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD of the purposes for which data about any identified or identifiable natural person (“Personal Data”) submitted to Registry Operator by such registrar is collected and used under this Agreement or otherwise and the intended recipients (or categories of recipients) of such Personal Data, and (ii) require such registrar to obtain the consent of each registrant in the TLD for such collection and use of Personal Data. Registry Operator shall take reasonable steps to protect Personal Data collected from such registrar from loss, misuse, unauthorized disclosure, alteration or destruction. Registry Operator shall not use or authorize the use of Personal Data in a way that is incompatible with the notice provided to registrars. SPECIFICATION 4 REGISTRATION DATA PUBLICATION SERVICES 1. Registration Data Directory Services. Until ICANN requires a different protocol, Registry Operator will operate a WHOIS service available via port 43 in accordance with RFC 3912, and a web-based Directory Service at <whois.nic.TLD> providing free public query-based access to at least the following elements in the following format. ICANN reserves the right to specify alternative formats and protocols, and upon such specification, the Registry Operator will implement such alternative specification as soon as reasonably practicable. Regards, Raymond From: Metalitz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 8:08 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 +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org 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 +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
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<mailto: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 +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> From: <Metalitz>, Steven Metalitz <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:02 PM To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" <whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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 +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>
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 <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
+1.202.374.3969 (m)
+1.202.570.7125 (d)
jamie.hedlund@icann.org
*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 <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
+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
What time is the call please? for some reason no invitation has arrived, I thought I had seen a decision about the time, but I cannot retrieve it through email, nor find it on the agenda, the recent traffic, or on the IAG COnflicts site. Sorry but It would be good to have it listed there so we could look it up. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin On 2015-03-30 13:26, Jamie Hedlund 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
_______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
1500 Cairo time - whatever that is in your timezone Unfortunately I won't be able to join the call today as I'm doing training in Cairo Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 1 Apr 2015, at 07:32, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: What time is the call please? for some reason no invitation has arrived, I thought I had seen a decision about the time, but I cannot retrieve it through email, nor find it on the agenda, the recent traffic, or on the IAG COnflicts site. Sorry but It would be good to have it listed there so we could look it up. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin On 2015-03-30 13:26, Jamie Hedlund 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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I think it is 13.00 UTC, 15.00 CEST. Correct? CW On 01 Apr 2015, at 07:15, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
What time is the call please? for some reason no invitation has arrived, I thought I had seen a decision about the time, but I cannot retrieve it through email, nor find it on the agenda, the recent traffic, or on the IAG COnflicts site. Sorry but It would be good to have it listed there so we could look it up. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-03-30 13:26, Jamie Hedlund 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
_______________________________________________ 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
That is correct - 13:00 UTC. Thanks. Best, Jamie On Apr 1, 2015, at 2:56 AM, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: I think it is 13.00 UTC, 15.00 CEST. Correct? CW On 01 Apr 2015, at 07:15, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: What time is the call please? for some reason no invitation has arrived, I thought I had seen a decision about the time, but I cannot retrieve it through email, nor find it on the agenda, the recent traffic, or on the IAG COnflicts site. Sorry but It would be good to have it listed there so we could look it up. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin On 2015-03-30 13:26, Jamie Hedlund 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<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
participants (9)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Christopher Wilkinson -
James Gannon -
Jamie Hedlund -
Mary Wong -
Metalitz, Steven -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Raymond HO -
Stephanie Perrin