ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "'Steven J. Metalitz IIPA'" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "'Marc Schneiders'" <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Jordyn A. Buchanan'" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: AW: [dow1-2tf] Expanded "step by step" procedure re conflicts with local law
  • From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:44:43 +0200
  • Cc: "'Jeff Neuman'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <AEC255FE63E15242B7C16532227D7C8E3D82DB@smmail.local.iipa.com>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcSqYhaLRb2NYumNSYSFDirqMfWaEAAEsS0QAqZwL6A=

Hello all,

I´m not absolutely clear about Steves statement. As I see it the main
problem for a
Registrar/Registry might stem from a situation where a local authority
an order to close down the whois service or at least parts of it without
allowing for
any prior consultation. The problem is NOT that the local authority will not
to communicate it to ICANN to begin consultation. To better reflect this
I amended Steves wording a bit.




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Steven J. Metalitz IIPA
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Oktober 2004 02:53
An: Marc Schneiders; Jordyn A. Buchanan
Cc: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA; Jeff Neuman; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [dow1-2tf] Expanded "step by step" procedure re conflicts with
local law 

 The following provision of the draft is intended to address the situation
Marc envisions:

"Similarly, if the problem arises from a formal complaint or contact by a
local/national law enforcement authority which cannot be communicated to
ICANN under provisions of local/national law, the registrar will use
appropriate available channels to seek relief from such a secrecy
obligation, and will provide a notification conforming as closely as
possible to what is outlined above as soon as it is able to do so."

I think this covers the case in which a registrar is unable to communicate
with ICANN and seek to invoke the consultation process before the law
enforcement authority acts "to close down operations of the registrar."
Clearly the preferred course would be for registrars to notify ICANN as
early as possible of the asserted conflict.  If local law prevents this,
then the paragraph quoted above would apply.  But if local law does not
forbid disclosure of the enforcement action, the procedure should give
registrars an incentive not to wait until it is too late for the
consultation process to work.  

Steve Metalitz  


-----Original Message-----
From: marc@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:marc@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 6:32 PM
To: Jordyn A. Buchanan
Cc: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA; Jeff Neuman; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Expanded "step by step" procedure re conflicts with
local law 

Thanks, Jordyn. Perhaps we could include this language in the proposed text?

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, at 18:14 [=GMT-0400], Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:

> Marc:
> 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.
> Jordyn
> 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.
> >
> >

Attachment: Domain Names Whois step by step procedure v2.doc
Description: MS-Word document

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