<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree with Tim for
the additional reason that the proposal below appears to engage ICANN general
counsel and staff in the business of providing advice to registrars relative to
compliance with their respective national laws and/or engaging ICANN general
counsel in prescribing "ICANN compliance" in conflict with national
authorities.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT face=Arial size=2>While any lawyer
might enjoy kibitzing on other people's legal problems, acting on legal guidance
from ICANN in the absence of ICANN's acceptance of malpractice liability and
indemnification, seems a bit much for a registrar to assume. ICANN's
general counsel is, in fact, prohibited by the law of the State of
California from rendering legal advice without exposure to unlimited
personal liability. If ICANN's counsel desires to opine on the laws of
several nations, then I would admire the fortitude required to seek admission to
practice in those jurisdictions.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><SPAN
class=733064714-17062005><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tim is absolutely correct there
is a larger principle at work than simply the WHOIS
issue.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=733064714-17062005></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT face=Arial size=2>It is entirely
conceivable that a national law could be so opposed to an ICANN accreditation
provision that it turns out that a registrar cannot operate in that country and
be ICANN compliant. For example, there are countries in which business
entities cannot legally pay their obligations to ICANN - e.g. Cuba. As
attractive a notion it may be to send ICANN staff to North Korea to work out a
compromise position on WHOIS or other issues, I am fond of certain members of
that staff and would like to see them return. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>There seems to
be a line of reasoning in this discussion which has not been made
explicit. A contract obligation to "abide by applicable laws and
governmental regulations" is not normally understood to excise any other
contract provision that may by its own terms conflict with such applicable
law. It does, however, render the relevant party incapable of
performing. Hence, it may well be that there are national laws so
repugnant to ICANN contract requirements as to simply make it impossible to
accredit or operate a registrar in the relevant nations. Morphing a "uniform"
contract to have non-uniform requirements depending on a contracting party's
location merely creates a haven or race-to-the-bottom
effect.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT face=Arial size=2>So, if a law in
Whereisastan renders Whereisastanis from operating as duly ICANN accredited
registrars, then that is a problem between the affected Whereisastanis and their
government - it is not ICANN's problem, nor is it the problem of compliant
registrars outside of Whereisastan.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT face=Arial size=2>John
Berryhill</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=733064714-17062005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=733064714-17062005></SPAN><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=733064714-17062005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=733064714-17062005></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=733064714-17062005> </SPAN>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]<B>On
Behalf Of </B>Tim Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, June 17, 2005 8:27
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Bruce Tonkin<BR><B>Cc:</B>
registrars@dnso.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [registrars] Comments on WHOIS task
force recommendation on Conflicts with Local law<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>Bruce,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree with your principles. I just don't believe we need any
new consensus policy on this subject for the following reasons:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. Secton 3.7.2 of the RAA already covers this: "Registrar
shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations." Any registrar is
capable of contacting ICANN to open a dialogue when a conflict exists.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. Whois is just one area where conflicts might come up. I
don't believe a precedent should be set where PDPs get started on every area
or situation where such conflicts might occur. That is not practical nor
achievable.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>I have made a request to the TF for a couple of minor but important
changes to the policy portion, but only out of concern that it *might* become
consensus policy. I do not expect that those changes will be accepted, but
either way I suggest that when the RC is asked for a position statement on
this recommendation that we wholly reject both the policy and advice portions
based on 1 and 2 above.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tim</DIV><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>--------
Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [registrars] Comments on WHOIS
task force recommendation on<BR>Conflicts with Local law<BR>From:
"Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><BR>Date: Fri, June
17, 2005 3:45 am<BR>To: registrars@dnso.org<BR><BR>Hello All,<BR><BR>The
WHOIS task force have been discussing a proposed consensus<BR>recommendation
with respect to the conflict between local laws and<BR>ICANN.<BR><BR>I think
the principles should be:<BR>- registrars must comply with their ICANN
agreements<BR>- registrars must comply with the laws of the countries they
operate in<BR>- registrars need to be innovative in coming up with solutions
to<BR>problems that meet both the above requirements<BR>- ICANN staff can
assist registrars by providing feedback on whether the<BR>innovative
approaches by registrars are still compliant with the
ICANN<BR>agreements<BR>- ICANN staff should assist the GNSO policy process
by providing advice<BR>that assists refining the consensus polices to make
it easier for<BR>registrars to comply with local laws, provided these laws
are in the<BR>best interest of registrants and Internet users
generally<BR><BR>The draft consensus policy recommendation
states:<BR><BR><BR><BR>"CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION<BR><BR>In order to
facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between<BR>local/national
mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable<BR>provisions of the
ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and<BR>distribution of
personal data via Whois, ICANN should: <BR><BR>1. Develop and publicly
document a procedure for dealing with the<BR>situation in which a registrar
or registry can credibly demonstrate that<BR>it is legally prevented by
local/national privacy laws or regulations<BR>from fully complying with
applicable provisions of its ICANN contract<BR>regarding the collection,
display and distribution of personal data via<BR>WHOIS. <BR><BR>2.
Create goals for the procedure which include: <BR><BR>a.
Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the<BR>earliest
appropriate juncture;<BR><BR>b. Resolving the conflict, if possible,
in a manner conducive<BR>to stability and uniformity of the Whois
system;<BR><BR>c. Providing a mechanism for the recognition, in
appropriate<BR>circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise
resolved, of an<BR>exception to contractual obligations with regard to
collection, display<BR>and distribution of personally identifiable data via
Whois; and <BR><BR>d. Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN
staff to respond<BR>to particular factual situations as they
arise."<BR><BR>I recommend that (c) above either be deleted or redrafted
as:<BR>"Providing a mechanism for the recognition, in appropriate
circumstances<BR>where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an
exception to<BR>contractual obligations FOR ALL REGISTRARS with regard to
collection,<BR>display and distribution of personally identifiable data via
Whois;<BR><BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Bruce Tonkin
</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>