[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: DRAFT REV2 ALAC response to ICANN Procedure for handling Whois conflicts…

[Stephanie Perrin]

I think this is an excellent response to the WHOIS conflicts procedure, 
and I wrote and told them so, indicating that I will recommend to NCSG 
that we cite their proposal and support it.  I will of course add to 
ours a chunk on the EWG recommendation that ICANN draft a privacy policy 
that matches global requirements, and consider binding corporate rules 
(which when cited in the contracts would require better enforcement 
among contracted parties of the behaviour of their resellers.)

cheers Stephanie



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: DRAFT REV2 ALAC response to ICANN Procedure for handling 
Whois conflicts?
Date: 	Fri, 2 Jun 2017 04:51:28 -0400
From: 	Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
To: 	Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, ELEEZA AGOPIAN 
<Eleeza.agopian at icann.org>
CC: 	Annette M?hlberg <annette.muehlberg at verdi.de>, Andrei Kolesnikov 
<andrei at rol.ru>, WOLF LUDWIG <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net>, Schweighofer 
Erich <erich.schweighofer at univie.ac.at>, YRJO LANSIPURO 
<yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com>



Good morning:

Please find attached the DRAFT Rev2 of the proposed submission.
I have included redrafting from Annette and Erich (lightly edited).
Subject to Olivier's agreement, may I ask Eleeza to repost the new draft 
to the Wiki.

Many thanks to you all for improvements, comments and support. I trust 
that this will now fly with EURALO and with ALAC.

Best regards

Christopher



On 01 Jun 2017, at 22:44, Christopher Wilkinson 
<cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

> Eric, Annette:
>
> Thankyou both. I expect to have a little time tomorrow morning to do a 
> final review before leaving to Edinburgh for the weekend.
>
> -I intended the text to be /assimmilable /to the whole of ALAC, thus 
> did not focus only on the EU;
>
> -For the 'block exemption', that idea was clearly drawn from EU 
> practice, and I still think that it would be a valid fallback for the 
> EU R&Rs should all else fail.
> But I think ALAC owes it to the rest of the world to do something more 
> significant, thus the 'best practice' option.
>
> I take it that our At Large leadership would take it on from here, 
> including the aspects arising from the (generally little known) 
> proposals for a successor to the WHOIS protocol.
> (There is an acronym here  that I have forgotten)
>
> Good night
>
> C.
>
>
> On 01 Jun 2017, at 21:56, Schweighofer Erich 
> <erich.schweighofer at univie.ac.at 
> <mailto:erich.schweighofer at univie.ac.at>> wrote:
>
>> <170500_ICANN EuRALO_DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION_AM_ES.odt>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170603/e99f660e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT REV 2 - 170500_ICANN EuRALO_DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 14864 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170603/e99f660e/attachment-0001.odt>