Really good work Stephanie. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:47:41 -0400
Subject: NCSG response to WHOIS conflicts, another edit

Thanks, I did a fast read, picked up a couple of typos and omissions and 
added a para on the fundamental absurdity of expecting registrars to put up 
their hands and ask whether they are breaking the law.  I also mentioned the 
affirmation of commitments, which I construe as imposing an obligation to 
consider whether they are acting in the public interest and promoting 
consumer trust.  Seems clear to me but you might want to check 
it....probably does not match how this has been construed in the past.
cheers steph

I'm happy any time we can refer to the AoC. In our accountability work last 
year we referred to the AoC multiple times in suggesting that ICANN had a 
responsibility to be open and transparent. In their responses the ICANN 
Board brushed off any notion the AoC represented anything approaching "hard 
law" that they needed to consider. I think your approach is the correct one 
- just don't expect miracles from a Board that seems to believe that "public 
interest" is best defined as, in a bit of circular reasoning, whatever is in 
ICANN's corporate interest (i.e. ICANN is in the public interest thus 
whatever benefits ICANN itself by definition  is the public interest).

I'm not sure how others feel so I didn't make an edit, but is there a way to 
get to the AoC without impugning motive to the silence of the registrars? 
You may very well be right in suggesting a specific reason the registrars 
haven't commented, but I'm a bit hesitant to suggest a reason ("it could be 
that the registrars are keeping their heads down, a sensible position...) 
without anything substantive to back it up. We certainly don't want other 
groups trying to explain the reasoning for our action / inaction on specific 
issues.

Thanks, again, to you and Kathy for such great work.