<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1250"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Milton, I admire you that yo can still go through this, arguing point
by point.<br>
<br>
I have always been thinking - simpleminded as I am - that ICANN will
never want to make rules with are in conflict with national law (and
not make different rules for different countries).<br>
<br>
So what Janis said:<br>
<pre wrap="">= =
Janis noted as a personal comment on Telnic—no
responsible business would engage on any operation
that would lead them to the court
= =
</pre>
is so clear and evident, that I am just fed up that we have to argue
again and again - together with Janis - that the law is the law...<br>
<br>
<br>
Norbert<br>
<br>
=<br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58C28@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
Kurt Pritz indicated further, that issues were raised
regarding what the proposed change should be measured
against, and cited three available tools: 1) the
process for considering registry services (funnel
process); 2) the Whois Procedure for Conflicts with
National Laws; and 3) a request for registry contract
change. In this case the staff is using all three
standards.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Unacceptable. This is clearly a case of clash between national law and Whois contracts and should be evaluated exclusively under that procedure. That policy has been adopted unanimously by the GNSO and passed by the Board. It is an unfair case of double-standards and confusion to say that ICANN can apply any other standard that some constituency demands in order to prevent it from happening.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The registry services funnel process provides a
threshold question to evaluate whether there are
stability or security issues associated with the
proposal. In this case no such issues were identified.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Duh.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The Whois Procedure for Conflicts with National Laws
is not yet implemented pending GAC input, however,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
What? Tell me what part of the ICANN by laws gives GAC the authority to veto a policy? Moreover, GAC has already passed its Whois principles, which clearly establish a basis for recognizing differences in national law.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">interim GAC advice on this procedure was published at
the ICANN San Juan meeting. This draft procedure
suggests public consultation and requires Board
approval.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That was already part of the policy. It is perfectly obvious that one government (guess which one?) is gaming the system to prevent a policy change they do not agree with. If this is allowed, and if linked to an after the fact GAC veto on any policy, then there is no reason to have an ICANN at all. ICANN was supposed to move us away from conflicting territorial jurisdictions.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">First, is an evaluation of whether there is government
action that might conflict with ICANN contractual
Whois requirements? Telnic is not scheduled to start
registry operations until early 2008 and there is a
question as to whether there is a government action
absent an actual violation of a national law.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This kind of catch-22 is reprehensible. As Janis Karklins notes later on in the minutes, no sane business operation is going to violate the law first, and ask ICANN to change their contract later. Anyone who raises this as an issue is playing dirty, pure and simple.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The second issue is whether the modifications to the
proposal made by Telnic sufficiently address concerns
raised by members of the community. As a result of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Huh? They completely caved in to the IPR lobby. See below:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The 13-step
procedure for an interested party with a reason to
gain access to full information has been eliminated.
It has been replaced with a streamlined process where
qualified individual have full access through a user
name and password issued by Telnic. In another change,
Telnic abolished a fee for the service, replacing it
with some additional authentication procedure. With
this and other changes, the test is whether the
modifications to the proposal made by Telnic
sufficiently address concerns raised by members of the
community and whether the changes preserves the
ability to comply with contractual obligations to the
greatest extent possible. To answer those questions,
ICANN has held follow-up consultations with the UK
Information Commissioner’s Office and the IP
constituency.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Why no consultations with registrants and other privacy advocates?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The next step will be to post the
amended proposal by Telnic and weigh community
response as part of this analysis.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
By "community," you mean, of course, the intellectual property lobby.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">[Karklins] is not optimistic that the GAC will be able to
complete this work because of serious difference in
approach to data protection in different countries.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That's why GAC is supposed to be advisory, not policy making. A disagreement among governments should NOT prevent ICANN from formulating its own policy.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Janis noted as a personal comment on Telnic—no
responsible business would engage on any operation
that would lead them to the court. Instead they would
try to find a solution to get the procedure right from
the start. ICANN should be sensitive to this approach.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Thank God someone in that meeting had some common sense.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Bruce Tonkin noted in this debate is what a lot of
lawyers want to see is written advice from a privacy
commissioner and then challenge this advice. A privacy
commissioner does not want to publish what could be
used in court. Staff has done a lot of due diligence,
spoken to UK GAC representative who has confirmed it
is normal procedure that the Commission would provide
advice in confidence. A lot of information relied on
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The Chair noted that it might be that we will have
difficulty in establishing a uniform policy for Whois
data and may end up with regional or national
policies. The policy would depend on where the data is
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Oh, wonderful. Let's have regional or national domain name trademark disputes policies, too then. Let's have regional or national new TLDs as well. How about regional or national IDN implementations? Funny how it's ok to fracture the internet when the US government is out of step with the rest of the world.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.0/1076 - Release Date: 10/17/2007 7:53 PM
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia,
please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com">http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com</a> </pre>
</body>
</html>