[gnso-dow123] questions for GNSO discussion

[KathrynKL@xxxxxxx]

All: after months of illness in my house,  I can again participate in this 
discussion.  Hope the winter has been better for you... Kathy

I would like to add the following questions to those Milton and others have 
submitted:
(1)       Very nearly half of all ICANN-accredited registrars are based in 
countries which have comprehensive privacy protections for their citizens.  Is 
it reasonable to say that these registrars must either comply with their 
contractual provisions or face civil and even criminal prosecution in their 
countries?  

(2)     Background to question below:  Sometimes in chat rooms illegal 
information is posted.  Sometimes insiders who want to boost the price of their 
shares, for example, post information that is timely and illegal -- it could 
have 
an immediate impact on the market.   Initially, companies and law enforcement 
seeking identities called up ISPs and online services:  they requested and 
received the real identity of these individuals.  What followed was a set of 
"John Doe" suits where the subscriber sued the online service and said -- you 
can't give out my identity;  you have to notify me first and give me and my 
attorneys a chance to review the charges and if they are frivilous or malicious 
(e.g., a polluting company pursuing an environmentalist).  
       The subscriber said I have to have the opportunity to file to "quash" 
the suit *before* you relinquish my identify  -- and the courts agreed (US 
law).  Except in very limited cases (e.g., suicide or murder imminent), 
subscriber's identity may not revealed absent process and opportunity to quash.
         QUESTION:  does ICANN feel that it may face liability for rules that 
do not provide the basic privacy protections of other telecom mediums (e.g., 
unlisted phone numbers) and do not allow the registrant to quash frivilous or 
malicious claims?