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.
>
>
>
>
>
>