[IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting

[Christopher Wilkinson]

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 at 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 at icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>
> Cc: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at 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 at 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 at icann.org
> <Discussion document.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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/20150330/c0f14b2f/attachment-0001.html>