[IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Proposed Final Report, Revised Procedure and Cover Memo

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Dear Jamie Hedlund:

I have read your draft report.

I regret that i have to dissociate myself from the implication therein that this is a fair and transparent account of the work of the IAG, nor that it is a reasonable representation of the present and future situation of Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws. I would be grateful if my dissent be clearly indicated in the Header of any eventual final document based on this draft.

1.	I have placed at the disposal of the IAG and the staff the consequences of this policy in the EU, insofar as I am able as a private individual. My contribution in this respect has been systematically ignored by the staff. I question your competences to do so. In particular, even under the proposed Alternative Trigger, each Registry and each Registrar would still have to make separate individual applications for a waiver through each of their national authorities. I have explained to the IAG several times, why that is unnecessarily onerous, notably in view of the harmonisation of EU law in this area. I have requested a block exemption per jurisdiction. e.g. for the EU as a whole.

2.	Regarding 'Annex 4': as I have said before, I do not accept that these are 'Minority' statements. I consider that they reflect the opinion of a large number of entities and organisations, including those with formal responsibilities in the field. ICANN staff are not empowered to dismiss such as a 'minority'.

	Specifically, I request that the reference to these statements in the text be associated with a direct active Link to all the texts in Appendix 4.

3.	More generally, if I understand the gist of the Transition, ICANN's Board and staff would become much more closely scrutinised by the global community.
 	Thus, I regret to have to remind you that in that context, should the staff continue to ride roughshod over consistent and informed advice from members of the community, the prospects for a stable outcome post-Transition could indeed be prejudiced.

Without apology for brevity, I have already spent enough time trying to help you to get this right, apparently without success. As an active participant in CCT-IAG, CWG, CCWG and At Large, I feel that ICANN is asking too much if the time devoted to supporting your procedures is simply acknowledged by the staff in a fin de non reçevoir. Please record my dissent.

CW



On 13 May 2016, at 04:35, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:

> All, 
> 
>  
> Attached for your review please find attached Proposed Final Report, Revised Procedure (redline) and Cover Memo addressed to the GNSO Council. Please review and provide any input by 19 May 2016. We would like to submit these documents to the GNSO Council for their consideration on 20 May 2016. Thank you.
>  
> 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
>  
> <Final Report on IAG Review of Whois Conflicts Procedure v1.docx><Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law REDLINE.docx><Memo to GNSO Council - final.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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/20160522/1fe2b4f4/attachment.html>