Re: [dow1-2tf] Expanded "step by step" procedure re conflicts with local law
- To: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Expanded "step by step" procedure re conflicts with local law
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 00:32:26 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <C1526BBA-1652-11D9-B77D-000393D1327C@confusion.net>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks, Jordyn. Perhaps we could include this language in the
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, at 18:14 [=GMT-0400], Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
> 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.