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

[Carlton Samuels]

...the ALAC Response to the WHOIS RT report...


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

>  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
>
> 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: 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
>
>