[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report

[Stephanie Perrin]

I am so pleased that you are responding the way I did Ed!  First, yes 
you may rest assured I have explained (at some length) the reality of 
state jurisdiction and indeed dual jurisdiction over privacy....there is 
a question in there about whether sub-national authorities ought to be 
taken seriously.
Secondly, yup they expect authorities to write letters to them pleading 
to allow registrars to obey the law.  Failing that, they expect 
registrars to break the law and bring them the summons or fine....
drives me nuts, and I was well on the way there already....
advice welcome
PS Jamie Hedlund is leading.  The guy whose salary I have been 
complaining about for several months...

On 2015-08-04 20:12, Edward Morris wrote:
> That's an interesting little document you have there Stephanie.
> First question: Has anyone considered the fact that in countries like 
> Germany and the United States there are many privacy and data 
> protection laws at the subnational level? California alone has in 
> excess of 25 privacy laws I'm aware of. This document only references 
> conflict with national laws. What about conflict with subnational laws?
> ( If that's not a concern for those involved in the process might I 
> suggest a friendly letter of inquiry to the California AG? I'd be very 
> happy to assist both in the drafting and transmittal of such a letter.)
> Second question: The consensus alternate trigger. As hard as it might 
> be to imagine, there are places and government departments that might 
> not really want to spend the time writing letters to a private 
> California public benefits corporation. In some countries the 
> regulators and parliaments write the rules and legal advice is a 
> function of an agreement between a private party and a lawyer. Does 
> ICANN really expect special treatment from governments or is this just 
> another case of ICANN telling their contractual partners to go out, if 
> you can't get a clearance just break the law and then come to us?
> Who is coming up with this stuff?
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 12:30 AM
> *To*: "NCSG-Policy" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, "Kathy Kleiman" 
> <kathy at kathykleiman.com>, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> *Subject*: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
> I am sorry to pester you, folks, but I am once more agitated about the 
> absolutely ridiculous (IMHO) report about to come out from the WHOIS 
> conflicts with law volunteers group. I am going to have to write a 
> dissent, as I am sure that my comments will be ignored as usual.  
> Ideas on how to respond from veterans would be most welcome.  It will 
> go out for a 45 day comment period, and I am sorely tempted to try to 
> muster another petition campaign.  All this at a time when we have a 
> huge group mustering to club human rights to death in the bylaws of 
> the new accountable ICANN (call me cynical, but look at the group who 
> has joined the HR and accountability working group.....).  I am ccing 
> Kathy and James because of course they are v active on the privacy 
> proxy issues.....
> Cheers Stephanie
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
> Date: 	Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:22:01 -0400
> From: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> To: 	whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
>
>
>
> Thanks for this Jamie.  I regret not taking a closer look earlier, but 
> you know how busy we are these days.  Attached are a few redline comments.
> I think the report, while recognizing that technically the policy is 
> not in scope for the work of this team, should at least mention that 
> many of us have repeatedly said this is a nonsense and the policy 
> needs to be revisited.  To simply submit this as it stands invites all 
> kinds of reaction which might not be conducive to reasonable outcomes.
>
> Kind regards Stephanie Perrin
> On 2015-08-04 18:40, Jamie Hedlund wrote:
>> All,
>> Attached please find a redlined draft report in Word and PDF. For 
>> tomorrow?s call, I would propose reviewing the changes from the last 
>> draft and next steps. While I regret not being able to circulate the 
>> revised draft sooner, the number of changes are fairly limited.
>> Best,
>> Jamie
>> Jamie Hedlund
>> VP, Strategic Programs
>> Global Domains Division
>> ICANN
>> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
>> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
>> jamie.hedlund at icann.org
>> From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org 
>> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jamie 
>> Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 15:00
>> To: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org 
>> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>" 
>> <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>>
>> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
>> All,
>> Attached please find a draft report for the IAG?s review and 
>> consideration. We propose that discussion of the draft be the sole 
>> agenda item for Monday?s call. If you have any comments or edits 
>> before then please feel free to send those to the mailing list. Thank 
>> you.
>> Best,
>> Jamie
>> Jamie Hedlund
>> VP, Strategic Programs
>> Global Domains Division
>> ICANN
>> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
>> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
>> jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
>> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150804/40f1bfd9/attachment-0001.html>