ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [dow1-2tf] Expanded "step by step" procedure re conflicts with local law

  • To: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Expanded "step by step" procedure re conflicts with local law
  • From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:14:27 -0400
  • Cc: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <20041004235801.N23161-100000@voo.doo.net>
  • References: <20041004235801.N23161-100000@voo.doo.net>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


The original language from TF #2 did provide an exception in cases in which a registrar was forced to take immediate action by a regulator.

I believe that the intent of the task force (although it is not spelled out in detail in the agreed upon language, and I am doing a bit of interpretation here) was that when a situation arises in which there is a demonstrated conflict between ICANN contract requirements on WHOIS and national law, the registrar should not be penalized by ICANN as a result of complying with national law.


On Oct 4, 2004, at 6:07 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, at 12:16 [=GMT-0400], Steven J. Metalitz IIPA wrote:

This procedure assumes continued
compliance with contractual obligations throughout the process until the
issue is resolved.

Unless the national law isn't patient enough and will close down operations of a registrar...

Whois would go out of the air then anyway. Which would not bother me
that much. But the domains might also stop functioning in as far as
the registrar is also involved in the DNS.  That would be a pity. And
not good for the stability of the internet etc.

I think we need provisions for situations where national law isn't
patient enough to wait for the periods specified in the proposal.

ICANN doesn't have an army.

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