RE: [dow2tf] Proposed revision of proposal #2 from Monday

["Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>]

re tiers, and per our discussion on the last call, please see the .name
model at
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appo-8aug03.htm

________________________________

From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of KathrynKL@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 2:41 AM
To: Jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dow2tf] Proposed revision of proposal #2 from Monday


Jordyn:  I think Steve's comments of last night should definitely be
discussed, but I would like to request that we return to old subjects
only after we have addressed all pending and new subjects for a first
time.   (such an approach may also help inform our discussion of the
issues Steve raises).

Thus, some agenda items:
1) Finishing Publication of Data Elements: Tiers
then 
2) Data Element Collection (definitely needs to be discussed);
3) Proxy Services and revising limitations (NCUC proposal)
4) Special treatment of those registrants "with legitimate political and
free speech concerns"  (issued raised by ISPCP)

Thanks,
Kathy
-----------------
Forwarded Message: 
Subj: [dow2tf] Proposed revision of proposal #2 from Monday   
Date: 4/28/2004 7:39:11 PM Eastern Standard Time 
From: metalitz@xxxxxxxx 
To: dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent from the Internet (Details) 


This is a follow-up to the discussion of Tom's first proposal below
(actually this was item #2 on our call on Monday).  I agreed to try to
elaborate on this proposal to reflect some of the issues discussed on
the call.  Please see a draft below.  Perhaps we can discuss this on
tomorrow's call (along with item #4 which was not reached on Monday).  

By the way, to anticipate one question that may arise, some of the
language proposed below is taken from the WIPO Best Practices document
(see
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/cctld/bestpractices/bestpractices.doc)

Steve Metalitz


ICANN should develop and implement a procedure for dealing with the
situation where a registrar (or registry, in thick registry settings)
can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local mandatory
privacy law or regulations from fully complying with applicable
provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and
distribution of personal data via Whois.  The procedure should include:

*    prompt notification by the affected registrar/registry to ICANN
with detailed summary of the problem (including what is the evidence of
existence of a legal conflict, the specific legal provision involved,
and which specific data elements are affected);
*    consultation with ICANN  and other parties (which may include
government agencies) to try to resolve the problem/ remove the
impediment to full compliance with contract;
*    if there is a bona fide problem which cannot be resolved,
insertion of standardized notice/tag in Whois results, advising
requester of the problem and, if practicable, directing requester to
another source or alternative procedure for obtaining access to this
data element;
*    an appropriate form of public notice from ICANN re forbearance
from enforcement of full compliance with the contractual provision in
question.       

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:58 AM
To: Jordyn A. Buchanan
Cc: Kathryn Kleiman; 2DOW2tf; dmaher@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Topics to discuss

Very well the specific recommendations I would like to talk about on
todays call are:

ICANN WHOIS policy and local laws:

    Policy Proposal:

    No Registrar should be forced to breach its local laws regarding
    the collection, display and distribution of personal data in
order
    to be able to provide ICANN approved domain registrations,
regardless
    of whether the WHOIS service is provided by such registrar or
    another party under agreement with such registrar.

Tiered Access 

    Policy Proposal:

    As outlined in the Registrar statement.

Best,

tom