Re: [dow1-2tf] ICANN Response

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Very frustrating!. Will John Jeffrey or Paul Verhoef join todays call?

Best,

tom

Am 20.12.2004 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:
> All,
>  
> Lets be prepared to discuss the significance of this response on the call 
> tomorrow.
>  
> Thanks.
> 
> Jeff
> 
>       ______________________________________________ 
> From:   Paul Verhoef [  <mailto:paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx> 
> mailto:paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent:   20 December 2004 21:12 
> To:     'dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' 
> Cc:     'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Dan Halloran'; 'Barbara Roseman'; 
> 'gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx' 
> Subject:        
> 
>       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 
> recommendation:
> 
>       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 attorneys.
> 
>       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 require.
> 
>       Best regards, 
> Paul  
> 
> 
>       ____________________________________ 
> Paul Verhoef 
> Vice President Policy Development Support 
> ICANN 
> 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 
>   
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w