Re: [ga] ICANN Board sells out to US Gov't

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to know from Karl what his thoughts are on this respecting a "sell out".
  What autonomy does the board have to not do as the USG directs?
  If the USG relates demands that are not in keeping with the current and legacy MOUs, seems like there is a legal paradox thereing. Should they yield or hold a position consisternt with the MOU? 
  I guess this is a; what would Karl do question. But I would like answers from Palage and Kirokos and Williams.
   
  e 

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  George,

I am quite familiar with boths sides of the argument,
and I am keenly cognizant of the NTIA view that was
recently expressed in the Robert Peterson v. NTIA case
regarding anonymization services in the .us namespace.

While you and I may start out with different views on
the topic, over time it is reasonable to expect that
agreement on some points can be reached and that
eventually a consensus will emerge (especially as more
and more entities have come to respect individual
privacy rights and have implemented protocols that
still serve the needs of both law enforcement and the
intellectual property community).

This process, however, has been ripped asunder by the
intervention of the USG that chooses not to repect the
bottom-up process if it results in determinations that
don't accord with the U.S. view.

This repeated meddling on the part of a single
government is not a "good thing". Will ICANN be able
to develop gTLD policy as it sees fit, or will it
constantly need to kowtow to the NTIA?

Even what you deem to be a reasonable compromise
(proxy registrations) is now illegal in the .us
namespace owing to actions taken by the NTIA.

How much meddling are you prepared to accept?


--- George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> --- Danny Younger wrote:
> > Forget about bottom-up policy development. Forget
> > about the work of the WHOIS Task Force. Forget
> about
> > privacy rights that are being embraced on a
> worldwide
> > basis.
> > 
> > The USG has dictated what WHOIS policy will be. 
> 
> WHOIS was a divisive issue. While privacy advocates
> are well
> intentioned, they were unrealistic to expect that
> anonymous
> registrations would exist that increase costs for
> law enforcement,
> while increasing the protection for scammers,
> phishers, terrorists and
> other malevolent forces operating on the internet.
> 
> A Domains By Proxy type compromise is a very low
> cost alternative for
> those who wish to have an intermediary act as a
> representative. My
> proposal of a "Legal Representative" contact is very
> similar, and is
> consistent with what is being done in German (.de).
> 
> Privacy advocates always talk about the "European
> Privacy Directives"
> but it's really a myth that it means anonymous
> WHOIS.
> 
>
http://www.denic.de/en/faqs/alle_faqs/index.html#section_98
> 
> "Why are other people permitted to see my data, for
> example my address,
> in the whois query? 
> 
> This data has been rendered public in the whois
> query for some very
> good reasons.
> 
> Firstly, it is important to be able to contact you
> if ever there are
> any technical difficulties caused by your domain or
> its use, which
> might lead to problems for others. Of course, it
> would normally be your
> provider who would sort out such technical problems
> for you, but that
> does not affect publication of your data. It may
> happen that your
> provider is partly to blame for the technical
> difficulties and,
> ultimately, you, the domain holder, will be held
> liable (and that
> includes liability for any legal consequences).
> 
> Secondly, your data must be made public, so that, if
> your domain is the
> source of an infringement of somebody else's rights,
> it will be
> possible to establish against whom to proceed, if
> need be.
> 
> There is another angle you should consider. In
> registering a domain and
> using it, for instance as the address for a website,
> you as a rule
> become the provider of a media service which
> prescinds your usual
> privacy considerations. There are special laws that
> apply here and they
> require all providers of such services to provide a
> masthead disclosing
> their name and address. So, since everyone can see
> who you are here
> anyway, there would be no point in DENIC keeping
> your data
> confidential.
> 
> Against this background, incidentally, the German
> data-protection
> authorities have expressly approved of the
> publication of personal data
> in the whois query. Further information on this
> subject is to be found,
> for example, in the thirteenth data-protection
> report by the government
> of the German federal state of Hesse (sections 9.2
> and 9.3) and also in
> its fifteenth data-protection report (section 8.7).
> 
> If you do not want to have your address made public,
> the only option
> you have is to get the domain registered by someone
> else whom you
> trust. This other person will then be the legal
> domain holder instead
> of you, and their address will, of course, be made
> public in the whois
> query."
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


 				
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business.