[lac-discuss-en] . Change Request CAT WHOIS

[apisan at unam.mx]

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: Re:. Change Request CAT WHOIS 
 From: apisan at unam.mx

 Dear Carlton, colleagues, 


 thousand graciaspor this aportacin allowing critical to initiate some discussions LACRALO. Haralgunos comments with the minimum of encouraging the participation of the real experts: 


 1. be very valuable complement the points made by Carlton with views based on the tradition of positive law and the laws and PROTECTION PRACTICE of existing data or process passes "Latinos" of our community (ie, does not only in the "common law"). 


 2. anonymity and privacy of the corporations were the subject of interesting discussions at the 33rd. PROTECTION authorities reunin of data Mxico held in late 2011 and two conference partner of The Public Voice and the OECD (the last to find frames armonizacin policy). I think many of us find it natural that corporations can not claim the same rights of privacy and anonymity of individuals.However I have a question: qupasa with NGOs or CSOs that may be endangered by their positions POLICIES, and therefore may be putting at risk the individuals within them? 


 3. I am happy that the discusin includes both the standpoint of the social individual or organization at risk (which leads us to seek the maximum of anonymity and privacy) as the victim of it as a misconduct, which leads us to seek the maximums of identification of those responsible for it. Difcil Ahestsealado the balance to be achieved. 


 4. It will be very useful for someone with expertise could jurdico we illustrate the details of the request. Cat to become very particular the position resulting from the discussions. While. Cat is a record pequeoy has little - but not zero - Amrican presence in America and the Caribbean, is an advanced registry and on the other hand, as all, each SHARE of this type creates a relevant precedent. 


 Best regards. 


 Alejandro Pisanty 


 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
     Dr.Alejandro Pisanty 
 UNAM, University Avenue 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico 


 Ph. +52- (1) -55-5105-6044, +52- (1) -55-5418-3732 


 * My blog / My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com 
 * LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty 
 * Join the UNAM group on LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 
 * Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty 
 ---->> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org 
 Participate in ICANN, http://www.icann.org 
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 


 ________________________________________ 
 From: lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of carlton.samuels @ gmail.com [carlton.samuels @ gmail . com] 
 Posted on: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:11 
 To: lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
 CC: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
 Subject: [lac-discuss-en]. Change Request CAT WHOIS 


 [[- Translated text (in -> is )--]] 


 Subject:. Change Request CAT WHOIS 
 From: carlton.samuels @ gmail.com


 Dear Colleagues, 
 Please see the announcement here: 




 http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm 




 By the way, I am developing the project for ALAC response to the WHOIS RT 
 Report. My project aims to design a framework for the beginning of At-Large 
 regarding claims of privacy, and our position in the proxy records that we 
 be taken. In general, I think there is a convergence between the 
 defending principle and existing housing. 




 In the virtual world defined by the DNS, it is accepted that each of us is 
 connected to all of us. And while there is a long tradition that 
 parties to a contract may elect which jurisdiccina 
 submit claims and judgments binding, do not think it is useful in such 
 a "one-to-many relationship a sovereign CLAIM of a given 
 country or set of laws. 




 The At-Large estbien aware of the privacy claims of either 
 purposes and should seek all hotels of such claim, provided that 
 these do not degrade the ability of any user to effectively seek the repair of 
 complaint. In my view favored, the Internet as "common heritage" is in the right public, the good 
 the policy. As such, the anonymity of the pamphlets is a permanent 
 goal. Apart from this, we must repair begins with knowing the fifth is 
 responsible and NEDA are all relevant protocols observed. 




 In this context, we should care less if the privacy rights or claims 
 connected to an individual or a corporation. As obnoxious to the senses 
 some as can be, is largely established that the companies are personified 
 in the law, U.S. law more than 100 years seem to be much 
 influenced the legislation of many countries in this regard. 




 It is not sensitive to the struggle to fight again. 




 In my opinion, the definition of the subject / topic INRE proxy relationship is a 
 acceptance of a variant of agency rules. And here I am trusting in the expression 
 common law. Furthermore, since the requirements are enshrined in the WHOIS 
 the RAA, the relationship daños.Cada Law to propose a privacy proxy 
 registration must accept that a) the provider of proxy acts on expressed 
 real authority of the applicant b) the proxy provider accepts strict 
 responsibility for the holder, on whose behalf it acts. 




 The Draft Declaration cob should be available Friday, January 27 




 - Carlton Samuels 




 ============================== 
 Carlton Samuels 
 Mobile: 876-818-1799 
 * Strategy, Planning, Government, Evaluation and delivery * 
 ============================= 
 _______________________________________________ 









[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/a5f1decc2a.html
--]]