ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2

  • To: metalitz@xxxxxxxx, dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:54:44 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <AEC255FE63E15242B7C16532227D7C8E90BDDE@smmail.local.iipa.com>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P><BR><BR></P>I support moving ahead with following the PDP process at this point. I 
suggest that the ICANN staff be prepared to review the PDP process and walk the TF through the 
stages/activities. In fact, it would probably be good to clip and post that segment of the bylaws to the TF 
<DIV class=RTE>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;From: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" &lt;metalitz@xxxxxxxx&gt;
<DIV></DIV>&gt;To: &lt;dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:16:26 -0500
<DIV></DIV>&gt;As I recall, at the end of the last meeting it was decided that 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;co-chairs would circulate a proposal for an "option B" for having
<DIV></DIV>&gt;further discussion on the first recommendation (notice to and 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;from registrant).&nbsp;&nbsp;Having seen no proposal from the 
co-chairs I assume
<DIV></DIV>&gt;we should move ahead with "regular order" (to the extent there 
is one!)
<DIV></DIV>&gt;under the PDP, i.e., prepare the recommendation for public 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Regarding the second recommendation (procedure for situations of 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;conflict between ICANN agreements and local law re Whois), we 
have been
<DIV></DIV>&gt;discussing two options:&nbsp;&nbsp;moving ahead under the PDP 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;constituency statements on the recommendation), or continuing to 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;until it becomes possible to schedule a meeting with the ICANN 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;that have apparently expressed objections to the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;third option has been brought to my attention, and I believe it 
is worth
<DIV></DIV>&gt;serious consideration:&nbsp;&nbsp;asking the ICANN Ombudsman to 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;problem clearly seems to fall within the ombudsman's 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Ombudsman Framework, at
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Ombudsman's function is to act as an Alternative Dispute 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;(ADR) office for the ICANN community who may wish to lodge a 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;about a staff or board decision, action or inaction. The purpose 
of the
<DIV></DIV>&gt;office is to ensure that the members of the ICANN community have 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;treated fairly. The Ombudsman will act as an impartial officer 
and will
<DIV></DIV>&gt;attempt to resolve complaints about unfair treatment by ICANN 
using ADR
<DIV></DIV>&gt;techniques.").&nbsp;&nbsp;The ombudsman's webpage states: "The 
ICANN Ombudsman
<DIV></DIV>&gt;will receive and have jurisdiction over complaints concerning:
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Decisions, actions, or inactions by one or more members of ICANN 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I believe that is the situation we face here.
<DIV></DIV>&gt;While the ombudsman process can be invoked by anyone, and it 
would not
<DIV></DIV>&gt;require a decision of the Task Force for one or more individuals 
to move
<DIV></DIV>&gt;forward on this route, I believe it is worth discussing this 
option on
<DIV></DIV>&gt;our call tomorrow.
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Steve Metalitz

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