<<<
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
members.</DIV>
<DIV class=RTE> </DIV>
<DIV class=RTE> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>>To: <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on recommendations 1 and 2
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:16:26 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>As I recall, at the end of the last meeting it was decided that
the
<DIV></DIV>>co-chairs would circulate a proposal for an "option B" for having
<DIV></DIV>>further discussion on the first recommendation (notice to and
consent
<DIV></DIV>>from registrant). Having seen no proposal from the
co-chairs I assume
<DIV></DIV>>we should move ahead with "regular order" (to the extent there
is one!)
<DIV></DIV>>under the PDP, i.e., prepare the recommendation for public
comment.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Regarding the second recommendation (procedure for situations of
alleged
<DIV></DIV>>conflict between ICANN agreements and local law re Whois), we
have been
<DIV></DIV>>discussing two options: moving ahead under the PDP
(seeking
<DIV></DIV>>constituency statements on the recommendation), or continuing to
wait
<DIV></DIV>>until it becomes possible to schedule a meeting with the ICANN
staff
<DIV></DIV>>that have apparently expressed objections to the
recommendation. A
<DIV></DIV>>third option has been brought to my attention, and I believe it
is worth
<DIV></DIV>>serious consideration: asking the ICANN Ombudsman to
intervene. Our
<DIV></DIV>>problem clearly seems to fall within the ombudsman's
purview. See
<DIV></DIV>>Ombudsman Framework, at
<DIV></DIV>>http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/ombudsman-framework-03dec04.htm
("The
<DIV></DIV>>Ombudsman's function is to act as an Alternative Dispute
Resolution
<DIV></DIV>>(ADR) office for the ICANN community who may wish to lodge a
complaint
<DIV></DIV>>about a staff or board decision, action or inaction. The purpose
of the
<DIV></DIV>>office is to ensure that the members of the ICANN community have
been
<DIV></DIV>>treated fairly. The Ombudsman will act as an impartial officer
and will
<DIV></DIV>>attempt to resolve complaints about unfair treatment by ICANN
using ADR
<DIV></DIV>>techniques."). The ombudsman's webpage states: "The
ICANN Ombudsman
<DIV></DIV>>will receive and have jurisdiction over complaints concerning:
<DIV></DIV>>Decisions, actions, or inactions by one or more members of ICANN
staff".
<DIV></DIV>>I believe that is the situation we face here.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>While the ombudsman process can be invoked by anyone, and it
would not
<DIV></DIV>>require a decision of the Task Force for one or more individuals
to move
<DIV></DIV>>forward on this route, I believe it is worth discussing this
option on
<DIV></DIV>>our call tomorrow.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Steve Metalitz
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV></div></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|