RE: AW: [council] suggestions for the Toronto agenda

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Before committing to put this on the agenda for Toronto, I would like to refer 
the issue back to my SG.  I am not sure they would want this on the agenda 
given that it is a matter of negotiation between the registries and ICANN 
outside of the picket fence and therefore outside the scope of GNSO policy 
activities.  I ask for some indulgence in the way of timing so that I can get 
some feedback and bring it back to the council.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:06 AM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Cc: Thomas Rickert; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: AW: [council] suggestions for the Toronto agenda


I agree the issue merits a bit of GNSO discussion, even if any decisions will 
fall to the Board.  

Bill

On Sep 16, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> 
> Thanks Thomas for raising this issue.
> 
> I fully agree with the intention of Thomas points. As you will remember there 
> was a President´s Strategy Committee under Paul Twomey which discussed, inter 
> alia, under "internaitonalization" the option of a second ICANN HQ (under 
> Swiss or Belgium Law). This project was called "ICANN International". 
> Unfortunately, due to other priorities, the idea was never further discussed 
> in detail.
> 
> With all the cases we have seen in the last years that decisions by US courts 
> affects parties outside the US it seems to me that we have to come back to 
> such a discussion when we move forward into a broader gTLD space.  With 
> hundreds of new registries, based outside the US and more than 1000 
> registrars around the whole globe we will probably move into a complicated 
> situation where we have very confusing and unacceptable constellations in 
> handling concrete legal cases. This includes also the issue of privacy/whois. 
> 
> I have no clear idea at the moment how we can find a reasonable way to 
> accomodate the various individual/national interests in a workable legal 
> constellation, however it seems to me that we have to offer alternative 
> options for new contracting parties in this field. 
> 
> Furthermore, to continue with the present practice feeds arguments by UN 
> member states to look for alternatives. Some of them see such todays 
> situation as in contrast to the spirit of para. 68 of the Tunis agenda which 
> is not really true but also not totally wrong. 
> 
> It would be indeed a wise pro-active step of the GNSO council if we would 
> re-start such a discussion. It will be primarily future members of the GNSO 
> and their constituency which will have here problems and they will be 
> thankful if they realize that by joining the GNSO they enter an open and 
> sensitive community.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Thomas Rickert
> Gesendet: Fr 14.09.2012 11:09
> An: GNSO Council List
> Betreff: [council] suggestions for the Toronto agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stéphane, Wolf-Ulrich and Jeff, all,
> since we did not have the time to discuss agenda items for Toronto, I would 
> like to propose two topics now.
> 
> 1. At the moment, all contracts with ICANN are governed by the laws of 
> California. For ICANN to be globally inclusive, it would seem appropriate to 
> me if ICANN would offer contracts at least one in each of the regions under 
> one regional law. I would like to kick-off a discussion on that.
> 
> 2. In the course of the RAA negotiations there are, amongst others, requests 
> for (i) validation prior to the resolution of domain names and annual 
> re-verification to increase Whois accuracy as well as for (ii) data retention 
> for two years past the life of the registration. Particularly these two areas 
> will have an enormous impact on the whole community. Yet, there does not seem 
> to be community-wide attention to that and the practical and legal 
> implications thereof. Let me clarify that this it not meant to affect the 
> Registrars' mandate to negotiate or change the Council's role. It is more 
> about raising awareness.
> 
> 
> Thanks for all your work on putting the agenda together, Thomas
> 
> 
>