thanks Stephanie, excelent work Raitme Citterio 2014-07-31 5:26 GMT-04:30 Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]>: > 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. > > > > > >