[RAA-WG] [At-Large] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments

[jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com]

Michele and all,

  Point well taken regarding .COM.  However that point
is not a viable legal consideration necessary.  It seems
fairly obvious that ICANN accredited Registrars in particular
are falling behind current settled case law as well as the
most recent developments in statutory law in both the EU
and the US.  It also seems very evident given some of the
participants on this forum, that knowledge of recent case
law and statutory law in the US specifically is behind the
curve, so to speak.  That's unfortunate as political positions
of some participants don't agree with recent changes in
case and statutory law accordingly.  Ergo why I again 
suggested to Vittorio that Privacy provisions in the current
draft which were removed for whatever reasons be reinstated
accordingly, and I did so with including siting of several
of those settled case law and statutory law documentation.

  What concerns me, and I am hopeful does concern ICANN
as well as Registrars/Registries is that ignorance of
the law is not used or considered an excuse for dis-including
Privacy language which is commensurate with said current
law as is applicable.  Filure to do so will undoubtedly
result in legal filings and disrupt "proper" ecommerce
accordingly.

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.ie>
>Sent: Sep 17, 2007 6:33 PM
>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto at icann.org>
>Cc: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org, 'Vittorio Bertola' <vb at bertola.eu>, RAA-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] [At-Large] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments
>
>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> Just a question.
>> Am I the only one to whom it sounds weird that you can register in
>> privacy-friendly mode in a ccTLD, but not with a Registrar in the same
>> country?
>> To the best of my knowledge, a ccTLD is allowed to do that because it is
>> recognized that it is subject to the jurisdiction of its own country.
>> However, the registrar does also, in exactly the same way.
>> Elaborating further, what would be the situation of a gTLD registry located
>> in a country protecting privacy, and its registrars located in countries who
>> don't?
>> 
>> Just food for thought.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Roberto
>
>Roberto
>
>We've had this question posed to us more than once. Some people consider 
>it their inalienable right to be able to not display certain information 
>in WHOIS and have accused us of breaking the law since the ICANN 
>registrar we use follows the norm.
>
>Of course the counter-argument is that they could register a .eu, but 
>the economic reality is that .com is considered to be the "be all and 
>end all"
>
>Regards
>
>
>Michele
>
>-- 
>Mr Michele Neylon
>Blacknight Solutions
>Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>http://www.blacknight.ie/
>http://blog.blacknight.ie/
>Tel. 1850 929 929
>Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>-------------------------------
>Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
=======

'Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.