Re: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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

On 03/05/2005 12:17 PM Thomas Keller noted that;

> As you can see however you turn it someone might assume a advantage
> or disadvantage and I guess that is a catch-22 we will never be able to
> solve. Therefore creating a clear process that deals with such a situation 
> (which  will come up inevitable, no matter how policy will look like) in the
> future makes a lot of sence to me since it provides a minimum standard
> in terms of predictability and transparency.

It also institutionalizes poor practices in regions where progressive
privacy hasn't been legislated.

It also doesn't deal with the question of whether or not the privacy
exceptions are triggered based on registrar nexus or registrant nexus,
or both.

It also places too much emphasis on ICANN's discretionary capability to
enforce its contracts.

I could go on, but I firmly believe that this is a bad deal for
registrars, registries and registrants.

Privacy by exception?

I believe that there are more suitable ways for you to accomplish your
objectives that don't sell out the registrant community.

Let's talk about Privacy by policy before we start making compromises
such as those discussed in this proposal...

Regards,

- --




                       -rwr



Tucows Start Service: http://start.tucows.com

My contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
My weblog: http://www.byte.org/

"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
 - Mark Twain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFCd65+6sL06XjirooRAkg3AJ9vIe/1q4c5ge0HaAPMP/G++eADQQCfXAwo
BcslNVn9++uqYYQDNVbRhmY=
=5NH1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----