Re: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I don't see this as an area where a lowest common denominator approach
actually works. On the contrary, we should be striving to accomodate the
highest common denominator and then ensuring that these privileges are
extended to the most common denominator.

This seems to me, to be a common sense approach - at least compared to
the current proposal, which instead institutionalizes a laissez-faire
approach to privacy, but allows those that must offer it to do so.

The GNSO has the opportunity to be progressive with this policy and
adopt something that enhances privacy rights of individuals rather than
setting them back.

We already have both practical and policy precedent to support creating
an enhanced environment of privacy for individuals. I really hope that
we don't squander the opportunity.


On 03/05/2005 12:34 PM Vittorio Bertola noted that;

> 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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFCd61N6sL06XjirooRAnViAKCFsiMnFdTORsAOwBV2hqvvfNLeYgCggywd
KLmhXtcXHAToBiGJTUQUrC0=
=LQyQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----