<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">This note is especially directed to the WG leaders. I am wondering at what point the Working Group secures legal support.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our current round of document review reminds me of how complex the legal issues are -- including privacy and data protection law, law enforcement, contracts, and legal jurisdictions. There is the expectation that our WG will make policies
designed to address various legal problems and requirements, and that those policies will be in place for years to come. So it is imperative that we get things right.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The WG has access to a number of documents, and the WG has some fine legal experts on it, but this may not be enough. Our legal-eagle members hail from certain jurisdictions, and there may be gaps in their geographic expertise. They also
have day jobs and as volunteers may not be able to do all the lifting and research that may eventually be needed.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also see gaps in the ICANN processes to date, and therefore in the resulting documents. In 2012 the WHOIS Policy Review Team laid out some of the legal issues, but it was not for that group to analyze the issues and potential solutions
in any depth. Then the EWG proposed a specific solution, but provided fairly little in the way of legal analysis and justification, and it is unclear what legal advice the EWG received, beyond a memo prepared by the ICANN legal staff. For example, the EWG
report doesn’t even contain a reference to EU Article 29.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The IANA transition was another complicated issue, and the transition CWG received dedicated assistance in the form of neutral outside legal counsel.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am curious about whether the RDS WG leadership has given thought to this issue, and how to manage it over time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With best wishes,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">--Greg Aaron<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">P.S.: Legal support also strikes me as an excellent use of the nTLD application and auction proceeds …although I suppose that’s another matter!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>