Re: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft
Ross Rader ha scritto: In other words, if my relationship with ICANN allows Tucows to offer a privacy service, then Tim's relationship with ICANN should allow him to do the same - regardless of the peculiarities of our local legislation (except of course when the local law would normally prevent such a service from being offered...). Oh well - when I first got involved in this policy process, I was so naive to think that the mandate would be to examine all major privacy regulations and to extract from them a "lowest common denominator" that would meet all requirements from all legislations, while not mandating anything that would be illegal in any legislation. This would be a common sense solution that could be worked out and implemented very quickly, would avoid having different policies for different countries and different contracts for different registrars, would be accepted by all governments and privacy authorities, and would prevent everyone from lawsuits and investigations. Unfortunately, it seems to me that, on this matter, common sense was lost a long time ago... and we've now rather moved into the business of rewriting or "damage controlling" privacy regulations that some of us don't like, or something like that. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
|