Re: [dow1-2tf] ICANN Response
Very frustrating!. Will John Jeffrey or Paul Verhoef join todays call?
Am 20.12.2004 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:
> 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 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 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
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w