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

[James Gannon]

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 at icann.org [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:08 AM
To: 'Jamie Hedlund'; whois-iag-volunteers at 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 at icann.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:17 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven; whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at 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 at icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>

From: <Metalitz>, Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:02 PM
To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>, "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: 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 at icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:27 PM
To: whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at 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 at icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/whois-iag-volunteers/attachments/20150506/075dbd2a/attachment.html>