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.