ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [dow2tf] Draft Questions for GAC


(remarks in line)

Am 29.12.2003 schrieb Steve Metalitz:
> (1)  Thanks to Kathy for taking the initiative to draft these questions.  I
> think the answers could be quite interesting but I wonder how the GAC would
> react to such a broad set of interrogatories.  

well, I guess they will be delighted thought this is a uniq
possibility for them to present their local privacy laws in detail.
Afterall representing their governmental and legislative views is
the main reason for the participation of government officals.

>It seems to me the key question is #5, supplemented as follows:

I'm not too sure about you claim of importance here. They way I read
the DOW the task at hand is:

Document examples of existing local privacy laws in regard to
display/transmittal of data.

and not to focus on regulations regarding whois only. I would
even be suprised if there are any in particulare to this subject. 
What does not mean that we shouldn't ask this additional question.

> Has your country at the national, regional or local level (in a
> government, agency or court decision that you are aware of) made
> any decision or ruling regarding the collection and publication of
> personal information in the globally available WHOIS database?  If so,
> please provide a copy of or link to the decision, and of the law or
> regulation on which the decision was principally based.  
> As for the other questions, rather than asking GAC members about every law
> that might conceivably be applicable, would it make more sense to await the
> responses of the registrars to the question about which local or national
> laws they believe require them to make some sort of "accommodation" in their
> contact data handling practices?  We could then follow up with GAC about
> those laws that have been identified by the registrars, who after all are
> probably in the best position to know which laws are most likely to be
> applicable. 

Working for a registrar myself I would not advice to go down this way
since registrars are no law firms and most of them ,at least the ones I 
know, are more business and technical oriented than legal savvy. Besides,
only because registrars don't know that certain laws exists does not mean that
they don't exist and cannot be applied and enforced. 

I really don't see a good reason why we should not also ask the "Specialists" 
instead of only the "Commoner" if we have the possibility to do so. After all 
governments represent their citizens and citizens rights and not registrars ;)
> (2)  Although a few suggestions have been circulated since our last meeting,
> such as Kathy's proposal below, and see also
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow2tf/msg00021.html
> <http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow2tf/msg00021.html> , we
> don't yet have a consolidated draft of questions for our review and
> discussion on the conference call which is set to begin in less than 24
> hours.  In light of this, would it make more sense to pursue the first
> option suggested by our chair in the posting noted above:
> One option is to work this all out via e-mail, including a quick vote to
> make sure everyone is happy with them. A second alternative is to continue
> to work on language on the list, and then vote on our next call.
> Put another way, since we don't yet have a full draft text to react to, are
> we ready to "vote on our next call" if that takes place tomorrow?  Or would
> it make more sense to postpone the call until the text is available for our
> review?      

I agree having a full draft for discussion via email would certainly be
an great advantage especially because I will not be able to join
tonights conference call ;(.

I wish you all a Happy New Year ;)



Thomas Keller

Domain Services
Schlund + Partner AG
Brauerstrasse 48         		Tel. +49-721-91374-534
76135 Karlsruhe, Germany               	Fax  +49-721-91374-215
http://www.schlund.de                  	tom@xxxxxxxxxx      

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