Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Re: RCMP summary of procedures
- To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Re: RCMP summary of procedures
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:20:54 -0700
Milton and all sgb members,
I believe it may be simpler to say a law or set of same cannot
reasonably define a standard, and a standard cannot dictate
a law or set of same. However, a standard can be incorporated
in legislation that later becomes law.
We are trying to define a standard or set of same, for access
and levels thereof which may be helpful in the management of
Domain names and the registration thereof. LEA's or the private
sector may wish or desire to have a level of access in order to
police miscreant behavior and/or actions by registrants with
Whois as a tool for doing so. Yet we should be considerate
of registrants so that they do not become victims of overreaching,
by LEA's or he private sector in crafting access to Whois data
of a private nature.
Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>> "Carole Bird" <Carole.Bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 05/22/07 6:37 PM >>>
> >That's actually the opposite of what I would recommend. It's a given
> >that ICANN's policy cannot supercede a country's legislation.
> >That is say that if ICANN allows for more information to be provided
> >than a country's law allows, then the law is the defining standard.
> That is obviously _not_ true! If ICANN allows for more information to be
> than a country's law allows, the Whois data is available regardless of
> the national law. ICANN is the defining standard, not the law. As is the
> case now.
> >If ICANN looks to the strictest laws and imposes this on all countries
> >then ICANN is determining that privacy standards should exceed that
> >which a country has determined it requires.
> But if ICANN looks to the weakest laws and imposes this on all
> countries, it is doing exactly the same thing.
> The difference is that it is possible for countries to move from strong
> protection to weak protection on a national basis -- but movement in the
> opposite direction is NOT possible on a national basis. So your argument
> is clearly wrong.
> Proof: If ICANN's whois policies are designed with the strictest laws in
> mind, then it is easy for countries with looser regulations to define
> tiered access mechanisms that permit LEAs -- and even private parties --
> to gain access to the data when the suspect registrant, the registry or
> the registrar is in their jurisdiction.
> But If ICANN's whois policies give open access, then the data is "out
> there" by default and there is no way to shield it on the basis of laws
> based on territorial jurisdiction.
> This is an undeniable fact.
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
"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]
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827