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

[Alan Greenberg]

Carleton, is the statement that you are drafting for posting on Jan 
27th the ALAC response to the WHOIS RT Report, or a comment on the 
RSTEP request?

Alan

At 23/01/2012 10:09 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>Dear Colleagues:
>Please see the announcement here:
>
><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm 
>
>
>Apropos, I am developing the Draft for the ALAC response to the 
>WHOIS RT Report.  My draft seeks to layout a framework for the 
>At-Large principle  regarding claims of privacy and our position on 
>proxy registrations that we should adopt. In general, I do believe 
>there is convergence between the principle I espouse and extant case.
>
>In the virtual world defined by the DNS, we accept that each of us 
>is connected to all of us.  And while there is a time-honoured 
>tradition that parties to a contract may choose the legal 
>jurisdiction to which they will submit for binding claims and 
>judgments, we hardly think it useful in such  a 'one-to-many' 
>relationship for a claim of suzerainty of any particular national 
>law or, set of laws.
>
>The At-Large is properly mindful of claims to privacy for one or 
>other purpose and should seek every accommodation for such claims, 
>so long as these do not degrade the ability of any user to 
>effectively seek redress of grievance.  In my view, the Internet as 
>'commons' is, of right, good public policy.  And as such, anonymity 
>of the pamphleteer is an enduring objective.   This aside, we hold 
>that redress begins with knowing who is liable and, where to find 
>them, all relevant protocols observed.
>
>In this context, we should care less whether privacy rights or 
>claims are connected to a natural person or a corporation. As odious 
>to the senses for some as it may be, it is largely settled that 
>corporations are personified in the law; U.S. jurisprudence of over 
>100 years seems to have greatly influenced the laws of many nations 
>in this regard.
>
>Not sensible to fight that fight all over again.
>
>To my mind, the defining matter/ issue inre the proxy relationship 
>is an acceptance of a variant on agency rules. And here I'm relying 
>on expression of the common law.  Plus, seeing as the WHOIS 
>requirements are enshrined in the RAA, the law of torts. Every proxy 
>relationship that propose a privacy registration must accept that a) 
>the proxy provider acts on expressed actual authority of the 
>registrant b) the proxy provider accepts strict liability for the 
>registrant on whose behalf it acts.
>
>The Draft Statement should be available by cob Friday, 27th Jan.
>
>- Carlton Samuels
>
>==============================
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>=============================
>_______________________________________________
>WHOIS-WG mailing list
>WHOIS-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg
>
>WHOIS WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?whois_policy