<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
On 30-Jul-14 07:04, Edward Morris wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><html><body><br>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0,
0, 0); <br>
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none; <br>
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box; <br>
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); <br>
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%;
background-repeat: repeat <br>
repeat;"> </div><br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 13px; <br>
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none; <br>
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box; <br>
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); <br>
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%;
background-repeat: repeat <br>
repeat;"><br>
<div>Fantastic work Kathy! Surely we don’t want to
introduce the <br>
‘ICANN defense’ into the international legal
vernacular <br>
(‘Sorry your honour, ICANN made me do
it!’).</div><br>
<br>
<div> </div><br>
<br>
<div>Two minor suggestions:</div><br>
xxx<br>
<div>2. As the third “triggering event”
you have, in part, <br>
“Receipt of a written legal opinion from a nationally
recognized law <br>
firm in the applicable
jurisdiction”. </div><br>
<br>
<div> </div><br>
<br>
<div>Here in the United Kingdom some of the most prominent
solicitors <br>
practicing in both the cyber and privacy realms are solo
practitioners, <br>
often practicing in combination with a part time lecturing career.
Think of, <br>
for example, Jeremy Phillips. I’d hate to give the big
law firms any <br>
advantage over the equally qualified solicitor or barrister who
does not <br>
belong to a firm. Consider, perhaps amending the statement, as
such:</div><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Receipt of a written legal opinion from a
nationally recognized law firm <em>or qualified legal
practitioner</em> in the applicable jurisdiction.</blockquote>
<br>
I understand the motivation, but I'm not sure this change is
entirely sensible. 'qualified legal practitioner' is probably
anyone who's passed the bar.<br>
<br>
Does this imply that any random 3rd party troublemaker can send a
letter and waste ICANN resources responding? <br>
<br>
Really, any such action should be initiated by the
Registrar/Registry -- if a 3rd party (even NCSG) has an issue, they
can raise it with the R/R, or if necessary initiate action against
the R/R to force the issue. But it's not wise to introduce a 3rd
party - aside from the governmental offices with jurisdiction. <br>
<br>
Would adding 'retained or relied upon by the Registrar/Registry
impacted by such law' fix this? At least this would avoid the 3rd
party trap...e.g.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Receipt of a written legal opinion from a
nationally recognized law firm <em>or qualified legal
practitioner</em> in the applicable jurisdiction, who is
retained or relied upon by the Registrar/Registry impacted by such
law.</blockquote>
<br>
Nothing else jumped out at me...<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>