<<<
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> </div>
<div>ICANN's mission 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 until the conflicts are
resolved, registrar accreditations in that country may not be
possible?<BR><BR>Tim</div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
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" <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Wed, November 24, 2004
6:51 am<BR>To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><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>> No, even in the
US, we do not consider the "courts" as a "government<BR>> agency."
:)<BR>><BR>> Is there a place in the document that you are
looking at?<BR>><BR>> Jeff<BR>><BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: Marc Schneiders
[mailto:marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004
6:35 PM<BR>> To: Neuman, Jeff<BR>> Cc:
dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on
Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2<BR>><BR>><BR>> Stupid question
from a non-native English speaking European about<BR>> the meaning
of a word in the text on conflicts with national privacy<BR>>
laws:<BR>><BR>> Is a 'court of law' a 'government
agency'?<BR>><BR>> I would never, ever, include courts under
government agencies. And<BR>> judges in my country would hang me if
I did (and we still had capital<BR>> punishment, which we
fortunately do not). But if this is normal in US<BR>> English, I
have no problems. So just for clarification. Thanks.<BR>><BR>>
Marc Schneiders<BR>><BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|