[IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Public comment summary posted

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Well:

(a)	 I have no brief for the 'Statement of Work' which was prepared without my participation and already introduced significant biases into the IAG, which I deplore.

(b)	I real that your staff summary does suggest that Appendix 4 should be referred to the next GNSO PDP on Whois. I disagree. There are simple issues here that can be corrected Now.

( c)	It is indeed the 'underlying policy' that is flawed. The cure has to be found in the policy, not in the 'triggers' or such like.

CW


On 21 Jan 2016, at 22:33, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Christopher,
> 
> Thank you for your comments. I am sorry you were not able to provide them in time (see attached email). Please see responses inline. I hope these are helpful. 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
> 
> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 15:11
> To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Public comment summary posted
> 
> Dear Jamie Hedlund:
> 
> Thankyou. I have taken note of this publication.
> 
> 1. I do not agree with the characterisation of Appendix 4 as 'minority' opinions.
> No poll of the iAG members was ever taken; I am quite sure that the criticisms of the policy evoked in Appendix 4 are very widely held. We can consider how to characterize Appendix 4 prior to submitting the final report to the GNSO Council.
> 
> 2. I have strong reservations about the suggestion to refer the matter to another GNSO PDP. The issues arise in the first place from a flawed GNSO PDP a decade ago.
> I have little confidence, that another such exercise would lead to a more balanced and informed outcome. There was never any intention to "refer the matter to another GNSO PDP.” Rather, the IAG’s recommendations will be submitted to the GNSO Council to review whether they are consistent with the underlying policy and determine the next steps (see Statement of Work)
> 
> 3. Even within the restrictive parameters of the IAG, it was agreed that the existing policy had never been invoked; that should - at the very least - have led the ICANN staff to consider why that is the case. It is quite clear that the various 'trigger' mechanisms discussed in the report will not facilitate ICANN in conforming to applicable privacy and data protection laws in many jurisdictions. I don’t recall an IAG request of ICANN staff to consider why the procedure has not been invoked. I do recall during discussion of the Statement of Work that there were widely differing views as to why this is the case. This disagreement led to revisions of the SoW text to remove a perceived bias toward considering the lack of use of the procedure as evidence that it is flawed.  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Christopher Wilkinson
> 
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 19:40, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> 
>> FYI - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iag-whois-conflicts-privacy-2015-10-05-en
>> 
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
>> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
> 
> <Mail Attachment.eml>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/whois-iag-volunteers/attachments/20160121/850a21fb/attachment.html>