ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law

  • To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 16:47:59 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=vQKOjkteYrjtaLntsalLZByutFXU1TJ3IryUeFBFdNo=; b=2U10z4tIPkEZH020E8+10SnL+b57ydz+TJtfqQ6tjSar//rCgKgRKZAbRDXO8lv72D5KYQ14qiYdJgmbT1zTB2FJ5645TCmW2+LOtRj+BFm3qgVVIIe5NlhYnNG7RPuFsh+k+5g6kfnEIvi3Ik+wyQt6hA2HWE+5PPjbD4m4KMg=
  • In-reply-to: <4c05474a-389b-8b1b-203d-96283615d834@mail.utoronto.ca>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <28DC9417-597D-4C1D-8497-4517CF0E4A7D@godaddy.com> <4c05474a-389b-8b1b-203d-96283615d834@mail.utoronto.ca>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
  • Thread-index: AQHSILi4ui858A11ik+t1Fnz96yqP6Cc39oA
  • Thread-topic: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910
Thanks, Stephanie.  Can I take this note as your volunteering for this group 
effort?  ☺

J.


From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:34
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local 
law


Thanks for this.  I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my 
position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the 
policy was fundamentally flawed.  I recognize noone wants another PDP but 
Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and 
request a charter.  Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade.  
Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there 
were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a 
fix.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote:
Councilors –

Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it 
is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward.

Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of 
interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, 
please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff.  This summary is 
intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no 
means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list.

I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on 
this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient 
support to pass.

Thank you,

J.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>