[dow1-2tf] scheduling for tiered access
- To: <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [dow1-2tf] scheduling for tiered access
- From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:52:35 -0500
- In-reply-to: <20041221090505.GH2747@schlund.de>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcTnPGV9NtnPEX0IQdiKchjDSxJXFwAJ6urA
I had sent off a request to Andy and Leslie and just sent them a reminder.
I'll call Andy in the pm. if I don't hear from them earlier on dates. We
could also invite in some other experts to discuss topics with us in the
meantime. I do agree that we should invite in .ca, but we need to be aware
of where they are actually at, in terms of stages.
How about inviting .name to participate in a call with us?
From: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 4:05 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Subject: 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