ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[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 

        Dear Jordyn, 

        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 

        Best regards, 

Paul Verhoef 
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 
 <http://www.icann.org> www.icann.org 

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