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

[Vittorio Bertola]

John L ha scritto:
> If other people think it's important to put it back in, I'll put it back 
> in.

That's not how we have proceed until now. Each single comment has been 
incorporated unless it conflicted with something else (in which case we 
should discuss the matter until we reach agreement) or was too generic 
to be usable. I suggest we stick to that principle.

> 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."

Actually, we are not talking just about laws, but about whatever privacy 
policy ICANN might have. And even for laws, it would work the opposite 
way: once a registrar is sanctioned by a court or by the applicable 
privacy authority, ICANN could use that, if necessary, to deaccredit the 
registrar or apply some intermediate sanction, which is what one would 
expect if a registrar started to misuse in a severe manner the 
information it gathers from registrations.

If the new ALAC position is that breaches to privacy rights of the 
registrants are irrelevant and should not be contrasted by ICANN, I 
would like that to be said clearly.
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------