[At-Large] [RAA-WG] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments

[John L]

If other people think it's important to put it back in, I'll put it back 
in.

I didn't object, but I don't think it's an important point, either.  I 
actively oppose any language that tells ICANN to enforce privacy laws. 
That's the job of governments, not of ICANN.

ICANN: "We're sanctioning you for violating law X."

Registrar: "We didn't violate law X, and besides, it doesn't apply to us."

Then what?  More lawsuits?

R's,
John

> John L ha scritto:
>> I didn't reinstate the WHOIS privacy stuff since I saw only one comment 
>> asking for it.  But the section on resellers does say that registrars 
>> should have contracts that pass through all registrant responsibilities, 
>> which covers the most important point, I think.
>
> The main point (second bullet in draft 2) was that registrars who violate 
> whatever privacy laws or policies might exist (without entering into what 
> they should be, since on that we disagree) should be sanctioned and, in 
> serious cases, deaccredited, exactly as when they violate whatever laws or 
> policies require them to disclose certain information (again, without 
> entering into what they should be). In other words, enforcement should work 
> in both directions; not only for the policies that require disclosure, but 
> also for the policies that require privacy. To me it seems quite an obvious 
> and non-controversial point, so could you just reinstate it?
>
> In any case, the original Whois section was agreed text - no one had asked to 
> remove it in the round of comments to draft 2, not even you. So I do not 
> understand why we have to reopen the entire discussion once again - we just 
> needed to incorporate comments to draft 2 into a final draft.
>