RE: [ispcp] RE: IRT statement

["Jaime Wagner" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I didn't receive the original e-mail from Maggie.

 

I'm OK with the content, but I expressed then and repeat here I'm not so
sure about our first paragraph on the Clearing House. 

 

*	There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and
independent from ICANN.  ICANN should oversee and have complete
responsibility for the clearinghouse.

 

Although I agree that ICANN should have complete rights for overseeing and
should have the power to influence its operations, I have doubts if there's
not an arrangement that could reduce the extent of the liabilities on ICANN.
My reasoning is that although the Clearing House is fundamental to expedite
the process of registration (which pertains to ICANN) it will be dealing in
essence with the subject of intellectual property, which is not the
fundamental concern of ICANN and for which there are other more apt
institutions.

 

 

Jaime Wagner

ISPs Representative

CGI (Brazilian Internet Steering Commitee)
jaime <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> @cgi.br <mailto:jaime@xxxxxx>
+55(51)8126-0916
jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +55(51)3123-1701

 

From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tony Holmes
Sent: quarta-feira, 28 de outubro de 2009 21:59
To: 'Mansourkia, Magnolia'; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ispcp] RE: IRT statement

 

Maggie (and drafting team)

 

Many thanks for producing this and meeting the time constraints. 

 

I'm fine with the content, its brief and covers what's required as the
initial ISPCP input.

 

Tony

 

From: Mansourkia, Magnolia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 28 October 2009 07:27
To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx; Tony Holmes
Subject: IRT statement
Importance: High

 

Hi all. These are the proposed bullet points that Tony will use as the basis
of our constituency statement for the IRT working group.  Please review and
provide your comments to the list.  Obviously, we did not address every
question in the letter, only those that we had a vested interest in.  

 

*	There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and
independent from ICANN.  ICANN should oversee and have complete
responsibility for the clearinghouse.
*	URS must be mandatory.  Staff's belief that there is a strong
incentive to do this anyway does not address the impact of a business model
formed as a haven for bad actors.   
*	The clearinghouse is an existing and proven model that preserves
rights while expediting the registrants ability to register domains that do
not infringe on the rights of others.  It is a model that should extend to
existing registries, but consideration should be given to the timing.  

Please copy the list on your response, if any.  Tony will need our responses
by end of day, Thursday, October 29th.

Thanks, 

M.