On 30-Jul-14 07:04, Edward Morris wrote:
> <html><body>
> <div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
> font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
> background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
> background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
> background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat:
> repeat
> repeat;"> </div>
>
> <div style="font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px;
> font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
> background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
> background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
> background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat:
> repeat
> repeat;">
> <div>Fantastic work Kathy! Surely we don’t want to introduce the
> ‘ICANN defense’ into the international legal vernacular
> (‘Sorry your honour, ICANN made me do it!’).</div>
>
> <div> </div>
>
> <div>Two minor suggestions:</div>
> xxx
> <div>2. As the third “triggering event” you have, in part,
> “Receipt of a written legal opinion from a nationally recognized
> law
> firm in the applicable jurisdiction”. </div>
>
> <div> </div>
>
> <div>Here in the United Kingdom some of the most prominent solicitors
> practicing in both the cyber and privacy realms are solo practitioners,
> often practicing in combination with a part time lecturing career.
> Think of,
> for example, Jeremy Phillips. I’d hate to give the big law firms
> any
> advantage over the equally qualified solicitor or barrister who does not
> belong to a firm. Consider, perhaps amending the statement, as such:</div>
> Receipt of a written legal opinion from a nationally recognized law
> firm /or qualified legal practitioner/ in the applicable jurisdiction.
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.
Does this imply that any random 3rd party troublemaker can send a letter
and waste ICANN resources responding?
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.
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.
> Receipt of a written legal opinion from a nationally recognized law
> firm /or qualified legal practitioner/ in the applicable jurisdiction,
> who is retained or relied upon by the Registrar/Registry impacted by
> such law.
Nothing else jumped out at me...
Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
|
