ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2

  • To: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:51:55 -0700
  • Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<div>This isn't directly in response to Marc's question below, but I think
something to consider.</div>
<div>ICANN's mission&nbsp;involves the security and stability of the
Internet. At some point, that may take precendent over fostering
competition. If some country's local laws make it impossible for a
registrar to operate in a manner that complies with what is deemed as
necessary policies to ensure that stability and security then isn't it
reasonable to consider that&nbsp;until the conflicts are
resolved,&nbsp;registrar accreditations in that country&nbsp;may not be
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2<BR>From: "Marc
Schneiders" &lt;marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Wed, November 24, 2004
6:51 am<BR>To: "Neuman, Jeff" &lt;Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc:
dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Since I came into the TF late and had
little occasion to participate<BR>in the drafting of this text, I
should perhaps not now in the end<BR>start bringing up new issues. I
was just wondering whether the wording<BR>does include cases, where a
registrar gets sued by an individual or a<BR>group (e.g. a consumer
organization) for divulging private<BR>information. A court could order
a registrar to stop doing that for<BR>specific whois entries. Even award
damages. In the latter case, the<BR>registrar might have to close down
whois altogether to avoid<BR>further claims. Does the step by step
procedure cater for such<BR>situations too?<BR><BR>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004,
at 21:25 [=GMT-0500], Neuman, Jeff wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; No, even in the
US, we do not consider the "courts" as a "government<BR>&gt; agency."
:)<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Is there a place in the document that you are
looking at?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Jeff<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; -----Original
Message-----<BR>&gt; From: Marc Schneiders
[mailto:marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<BR>&gt; Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004
6:35 PM<BR>&gt; To: Neuman, Jeff<BR>&gt; Cc:
dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on
Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Stupid question
from a non-native English speaking European about<BR>&gt; the meaning
of a word in the text on conflicts with national privacy<BR>&gt;
laws:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Is a 'court of law' a 'government
agency'?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; I would never, ever, include courts under
government agencies. And<BR>&gt; judges in my country would hang me if
I did (and we still had capital<BR>&gt; punishment, which we
fortunately do not). But if this is normal in US<BR>&gt; English, I
have no problems. So just for clarification. Thanks.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;
Marc Schneiders<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; </BLOCKQUOTE>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>