RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

I'm an alternate Registrar rep to the Task Force. Tom and Paul are the
primary reps. Tom and Paul may have supported the drafts. I don't believe
that it can be said yet that the constituency supports the draft, or that it
doesn't. There has been no discussion of this joint Task Force's work within
the registrar's constituency that I'm aware of.

Step 3.iii
There should be no general rule. That item should simply end after the first
two sentences. I don't think we should attempt to define ICANN's mission
based on some consensus of what we think it should be, or confuse the issue
over what things like *stability*, *security*, and *global interoperability*
really mean. 

At the very most the last sentence of Step 3.iii might say something like:

The General Counsel should consider the entirety of ICANN's mission when
formulating its recommendation. (But it seems to me that this goes without
saying.)

Step Four
The first part of the first sentence should be removed. It should simply
start with "The Board shall consider..." (There are no *principles* in Step
3 to refer to, except perhaps the last sentence of 3.iii and you have my
thoughts on that.)

I would also prefer a mandatory comment period prior to the ICANN Board
acting on the recommendation. That would make the process more open and
transparent. The decision will affect other registrars, registries, and
registrants. They should have an opportunity to comment prior to the
decision.

Tim



-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:02 PM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Milton Mueller'; marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Neuman, Jeff
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2

Tim,

Are you saying that the Registrar rep to the Task Force is not in support of
the drafts?  During the call, it seemed as if every constituency that was
present on the call (which was all but the registrar rep) supported the
drafts.

That being said, if you are not in support, can you please provide us with
your reasons so that even if a majority does support the drafts, we can
include your statement as a minority support.

Thanks.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:56 PM
To: 'Milton Mueller'; marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2


Since you asked, no, I don't fully support the draft.

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:02 PM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2


Just as Marc's comments puzzled me, so does this one. The procedure we
recommended said that ICANN should NOT allow registrars to make
exceptions when DNS stability is threatened. See page 2, Step 3, point
iii. 

So I take it Tim that you support the current draft?

>>> Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 11/24/2004 8:51:55 AM >>>
>ICANN's mission involves the security and stability of the Internet.
At some point, that may take precendent over fostering competition. If
some country's local laws make it impossible for a registrar to operate
in a manner that complies with what is deemed as necessary policies to
ensure that stability and security then isn't it reasonable to consider
that until the conflicts are resolved, registrar accreditations in that
country may not be possible?

Tim
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2
From: "Marc Schneiders" <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, November 24, 2004 6:51 am
To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Since I came into the TF late and had little occasion to participate
in the drafting of this text, I should perhaps not now in the end
start bringing up new issues. I was just wondering whether the wording
does include cases, where a registrar gets sued by an individual or a
group (e.g. a consumer organization) for divulging private
information. A court could order a registrar to stop doing that for
specific whois entries. Even award damages. In the latter case, the
registrar might have to close down whois altogether to avoid
further claims. Does the step by step procedure cater for such
situations too?

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, at 21:25 [=GMT-0500], Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> No, even in the US, we do not consider the "courts" as a "government
> agency." :)
>
> Is there a place in the document that you are looking at?
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:35 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2
>
>
> Stupid question from a non-native English speaking European about
> the meaning of a word in the text on conflicts with national privacy
> laws:
>
> Is a 'court of law' a 'government agency'?
>
> I would never, ever, include courts under government agencies. And
> judges in my country would hang me if I did (and we still had
capital
> punishment, which we fortunately do not). But if this is normal in
US
> English, I have no problems. So just for clarification. Thanks.
>
> Marc Schneiders
>
>