ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "'Milton Mueller'" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>, <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 13:24:42 -0600
  • Cc: <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <s1a4948e.087@gwia201.syr.edu>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks for clarifying Milton. It was the last two sentences of Marc's
comment that concerned me, and prompted my question. I'm still not confident
that step 3.iii. really covers it. It puts a lot on the ICANN General
Counsel to prove something that there are a lot of opinions on how to


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:02 PM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2

Just as Marc's comments puzzled me, so does this one. The procedure we
recommended said that ICANN should NOT allow registrars to make
exceptions when DNS stability is threatened. See page 2, Step 3, point

So I take it Tim that you support the current draft?

>>> Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 11/24/2004 8:51:55 AM >>>
>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?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2
From: "Marc Schneiders" <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, November 24, 2004 6:51 am
To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Since I came into the TF late and had little occasion to participate
in the drafting of this text, I should perhaps not now in the end
start bringing up new issues. I was just wondering whether the wording
does include cases, where a registrar gets sued by an individual or a
group (e.g. a consumer organization) for divulging private
information. A court could order a registrar to stop doing that for
specific whois entries. Even award damages. In the latter case, the
registrar might have to close down whois altogether to avoid
further claims. Does the step by step procedure cater for such
situations too?

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, at 21:25 [=GMT-0500], Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> No, even in the US, we do not consider the "courts" as a "government
> agency." :)
> Is there a place in the document that you are looking at?
> Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:35 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Last Call on Final Draft of Issues 1 and 2
> Stupid question from a non-native English speaking European about
> the meaning of a word in the text on conflicts with national privacy
> laws:
> Is a 'court of law' a 'government agency'?
> I would never, ever, include courts under government agencies. And
> judges in my country would hang me if I did (and we still had
> punishment, which we fortunately do not). But if this is normal in
> English, I have no problems. So just for clarification. Thanks.
> Marc Schneiders

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