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

[Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally I suggest the Council should investigate the locality of
contract issue before putting it on the table:
a. It involves ASO and ccNSO which some of the members in those two orgs
have contracts / MoUs with ICANN. What are their positions on this?
b. Maybe I am wrong on this ... but If worldwide registrars have issues
with ICANN on locality of contract, they should have already acted on it,
but they did not.
c. So IMHO, this discussion will lead to revision of contract revision and
create even more complex legal structure. This perhaps benefit lawyers more
than the applicants.

Thomas -- I still appreciate your consideration on this issue. Would you be
able to share any views from others in CPH / ASO / ccNSO ?

Best regards,

Ching



On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:06 PM, William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>