ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [registrars] [Fwd: [Lextext] Bret Fausett has a new post on Internet Pro Radio | icann.Blog]

  • To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] [Fwd: [Lextext] Bret Fausett has a new post on Internet Pro Radio | icann.Blog]
  • From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:22:34 -0500
  • Cc: Marcus Faure <faure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <4364F140.8020404@tucows.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Research & Innovation
  • References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0510301652250.14521-100000@brian.voerde.globvill.de> <4364F140.8020404@tucows.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 1.4.1 (Windows/20051004)

Ross Rader wrote:
I understand that Bret has pulled one of the recordings because of legal concerns raised by a person or persons on the second call.

I stand corrected. Bret informs me that he pulled the second recording at the request of someone on the second call - Bret's explains it better (quoted with his permission)...

Ross, just to clarify the point you made on the registrar list, I pulled
the second recording as a courtesy to one of your colleagues. California
law only prevents the recording of "confidential communications." Under
the legal definition, a confidential communication "excludes a
communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative,
judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or
in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may
reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded."
I have complete confidence that my recording was legal. I don't want to
make anyone uncomfortable though, so I pulled the second recording after
receiving a polite request to do so -- no legal concerns were raised by
the person who asked.


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