ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow2tf] Another 1.4 change/local law

  • To: "Kathryn Kleiman" <KathrynKL@xxxxxxx>, <Jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Another 1.4 change/local law
  • From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:49:04 -0400
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcRDmNdECc1uGSLUQR2JxC4xm7PIyAAT5R2w
  • Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Another 1.4 change/local law

I strongly disagree with Kathy's characterization of my edit.  There are
not two processes:  there is one process whose initial steps
(consultation with ICANN) might be dropped in an exceptional case (when
local law enforcement demands prevent it). However, in the interest of
allowing Jordyn to send out the final version so that we can vote today,
I withdraw my proposed edit to this bullet within section 1.4.    

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of KathrynKL@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:15 PM
To: Jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dow2tf] Another 1.4 change/local law

I would also like to see Section 1.4 return to the original restatement
of 3.3 recommendations regarding local law (from Jordyn's version w/o
Steve's 5/26 changes).  Jordyn's version combines the elements of
compliance, notification, and process within ICANN.  Let's leave the
details to 3.3 for people to read about the two different processes: one
to notify ICANN after compliance with law enforcement orders, and two to
consult with ICANN prior to responding to law enforcement. 

Steve's version states only the 2nd and not the first.  That's not
really fair.  I say let's leave the detail to the 3.3 text.   thanks,

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