[IAG-WHOIS conflicts] FW: Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc

Mon Jun 15 17:47:19 UTC 2015

Can someone please remind me when our next meeting is?
Apologies, but I cannot find an invitations anywhere...
Stephanie Perrin
On 15-05-26 11:32 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> It would actually be quite inappropriate for Staff to do what is being 
> suggested
>
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
> http://www.technology.ie
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Social: http://mneylon.social
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business 
> Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
> From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jamie 
> Hedlund
> Date: Tuesday 26 May 2015 17:31
> To: Maria Otanes, "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org 
> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>"
> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] FW: Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc
>
> Christopher,
>
> It's not the role of staff to set out "essential and feasible aspects" 
> of the IAG's recommendations. Staff facilitates the work of the IAG to 
> develop consensus-based recommendations to modify (or not) the 
> procedure. Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Jamie
>
> Jamie Hedlund
> VP, Strategic Programs
> Global Domains Division
> ICANN
> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
> jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
>
> From: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org 
> <mailto:maria.otanes at icann.org>>
> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 11:21 AM
> To: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org 
> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>" 
> <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>>
> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] FW: Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc
>
>
> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 
> <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org <mailto:maria.otanes at icann.org>>
> Cc: "jeffrey at icann.org <mailto:jeffrey at icann.org>" <jeffrey at icann.org 
> <mailto:jeffrey at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc
>
> Dear Maria:
>
> Thankyou, but I regret that I do not understand this approach.
>
> I have explained in some detail why I cannot in any way endorse - even 
> tacitly - this document, as is, or as amended.
> May I suggest that ICANN staff present a one page summary of the 
> absolutely essential and feasible aspects that you would wish to see 
> recommended by the IAG-WHOIS.
>
> Best regards
>
> Christopher
>
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 
>>> <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal*
>>> *Date: *7 May 2015 20:19:14 GMT+02:00
>>> *To: *"whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org 
>>> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>" 
>>> <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>>
>>>
>>> Good evening:
>>>
>>> I have reviewed the 'Dual Trigger' procedure as proposed by James 
>>> Gannon, for which many thanks.
>>>
>>> However as I have explained to the recent conference calls, I see no 
>>> merit in spending time on tweaking the procedure for handling 
>>> eventual WHOIS conflicts with privacy and data protection laws when 
>>> the underlying ICANN policy is fundamentally flawed.
>>>
>>> I have proposed to greatly simplify and expedite the matter either 
>>> by ICANN adapting WHOIS to international best practice whereby all 
>>> Registries and Registrars would implement a high level of personal 
>>> data protection and privacy, world wide. Or alternatively, to 
>>> Reverse the Burden of Proof, whereby Registries and Registrars 
>>> would, as their primary default, implement applicable privacy and 
>>> data protection laws in their respective jurisdictions. It would 
>>> then be up to ICANN to initiate a procedure to examine whether, in 
>>> any particular case, there was a threat to the stability and 
>>> security of the Internet.
>>>
>>> The present draft document of some six detailed pages is really not 
>>> workable and contains some serious misconceptions.
>>>
>>> -How many Registries and Registrars, world-wide, would be 
>>> potentially affected by this procedure? What would be the 
>>> consequences in cost and staff time for ICANN should they all 
>>> actually apply for exemption?
>>> (Into how many languages would the procedure have to be translated 
>>> before it could be realistically implemented by all present and 
>>> future affected Registries and Registrars?)
>>>
>>> -ICANN's 'contractual WHOIS obligations' (Section 2.1) are not 
>>> sacrosanct, particularly when they are inconsistent with applicable law.
>>>
>>> -the reference to '... anticipated impact on the operational 
>>> stability ...' (Section 4.1) is rather tendentious. I am aware of no 
>>> reason to anticipate that privacy and data protection law would have 
>>> any such impact. On the contrary, there are a large number of 
>>> Registries (principally ccTLDs) which do respect applicable law. Did 
>>> ICANN ever question whether they had any negative impact on 
>>> stability, security or interoperability etc. of the Internet?
>>>
>>> -The reference in Section 5.2 to "ICANN's forbearance from 
>>> enforcement of full compliance ... " is likely to be perceived as 
>>> rather offensive. ICANN is not in a position to force Registrars or 
>>> Registries to choose between ICANN's contractual conditions and 
>>> applicable law. On the contrary, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation 
>>> were drafted to ensure that the opposite would be the case.
>>>
>>> More generally, there is an underlying issue of fair competition 
>>> between accredited Registrars in the ICANN gTLD system. Should one 
>>> accept the procedure as proposed, one would be effectively placing 
>>> certain Registrars at a competitive disadvantage (a) to undertake an 
>>> exorbitant procedure to obtain a waiver or exemption from ICANN's 
>>> contractual conditions and/or (b) to risk infringement of applicable 
>>> law vis-à-vis their Registrants and public authorities.
>>>
>>> Again, such outcome is contrary to the underlying objectives of 
>>> ICANN which was created in the first place to ensure conditions of 
>>> fair competition among Registrars, world-wide.
>>>
>>> In the light of the above, I would recommend that the working group 
>>> proceed no further with the so called 'trigger mechanisms' and start 
>>> again from a more realistic and legally compliant position.
>>>
>>> With best regards to you all
>>>
>>> Christopher Wilkinson
>
>
> On 26 May 2015, at 16:04, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org 
> <mailto:maria.otanes at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We have created a Google docs workspace for the Dual Trigger WHOIS 
>> proceeding proposal. Everyone on this email distribution has access 
>> to the document and has the ability to suggest edits or provide 
>> comments. If you have any questions or run into any problems with the 
>> Google doc, please let us know. Thanks.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iNKGTue_yt93gWzRdg7WkGNjIADZzzCveudYMT-n31c/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Maria Otanes
>> _______________________________________________
>> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
>> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org <mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/whois-iag-volunteers/attachments/20150615/776f94f7/attachment-0001.html>