[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