[dow1-2tf] ICANN Response
- To: <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [dow1-2tf] ICANN Response
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:36:36 -0500
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcTm0DORpYJNaZrVQ1qLEK9FRFAsUwAAsZKAAAAgFyA=
Lets be prepared to discuss the significance of this response on the call
From: Paul Verhoef [ <mailto:paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 20 December 2004 21:12
To: 'dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Dan Halloran'; 'Barbara Roseman';
TO: Task Force 1/2 co-chair
I have consulted with our operations and legal staff, and have
developed the following informal feedback concerning Task Force 1/2's draft
1. Registries and registrars should of course not enter contracts that
would be illegal for them to perform.
2. Fair competition rules dictate that registries and registrars should
not be able to gain a competitive advantage by choosing to operate from a
jurisdiction that has purportedly outlawed compliance with part of the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
3. Without careful study, action to address the concerns raised by
TF1/2 could open loopholes to compliance with the RAA that would hurt data
accuracy, consumer protection, and other authorised uses of Whois data.
4. The recommendation is drafted broadly, and could be read to require
ICANN to allow violations of the RAA except to preserve stability or security.
The draft report appears to give registrars and registries the right to
unilaterally breach the RAA, as long as they give notice to ICANN. ICANN would
be unable to take any reaction to ensure compliance without formal action by
the Board of Directors, following a process that includes publishing a report
that could contain priviliged and confidential legal advice from ICANN's
5. The recommendation posits specific activities for the ICANN General
Counsel's office, and prescribes actions to the GC's office which may be dealt
with more appropriately by policy development, registrar/registry liaison or
ICANN's Global Partnerships departments. The specificity of actions described
also seems like micro-management of ICANN staff resources in what is supposed
to be a policy discussion.
6. In light of the serious concerns meant to be addressed by the
recommendation, and the issues outlined above with the initially suggested
approach, might it be preferable to focus GNSO attention on developing
improvements to Whois policies that will allow for the broadest possible
harmony with local regulations, and then continue to leave it up to individual
companies to determine whether they can undertake the obligations set forth in
ICANN policies and agreements in light of local requirements?
Thank you for asking for our feedback. I hope this is helpful to you
and the task force. I look forward to providing further assistance as you may
Vice President Policy Development Support
6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel.: +32.2.234 7872
Fax: +32.2.234 7848