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

[Jamie Hedlund]

Christopher and Stephanie,

We can discuss your proposed topics under AOB at the end of the meeting.
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:  Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM
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] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015
meeting

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/20150330/20a74464/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5054 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/whois-iag-volunteers/attachments/20150330/20a74464/smime.p7s>