[lac-discuss-en] [WHOIS-WG] .CAT WHOIS Change Request
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jan 24 03:19:40 UTC 2012
Thanks. Got fooled by the subject line. Are we planning to replay to that?
Alan (with apologies for adding the E in your name!)
At 23/01/2012 05:40 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>...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
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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>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
>><mailto:WHOIS-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>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>https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?whois_policy
>
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list