ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [dow2tf] Proposed revision of proposal #2 from Monday

  • To: <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Proposed revision of proposal #2 from Monday
  • From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:31:13 -0400
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>From a user point of view, this is unacceptable. Basically, it means
that ICANN's policy is that it won't do anything to protect user privacy
unless it is forced to by national law. And even then the burden of proof
is on the registrar to jump through numerous hoops to demonstrate
that there is a conflict with law. And there is no consideration given
to the rights or interests of the registrant at all. 

If I were a registrar or registry, I would view the proposed procedure
as burdensome and expensive, and as legally risky. 

>>> "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx> 04/28/04 07:38PM >>>
>*	prompt notification by the affected registrar/registry to ICANN
>with detailed summary of the problem (including what is the evidence of
>existence of a legal conflict, the specific legal provision involved,
>and which specific data elements are affected);
>*	consultation with ICANN  and other parties (which may include
>government agencies) to try to resolve the problem/ remove the
>impediment to full compliance with contract;
>*	if there is a bona fide problem which cannot be resolved,
>insertion of standardized notice/tag in Whois results, advising
>requester of the problem and, if practicable, directing requester to
>another source or alternative procedure for obtaining access to this
>data element;
>*	an appropriate form of public notice from ICANN re forbearance
>from enforcement of full compliance with the contractual provision in

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