Re: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross,

reading your responses I more and more get the feeling that you are
assuming that this policy is created to introduce privacy to the
whois system which is a fundamental missunderstanding. The policy
was soley created to deal with cases in which a registrar or registry
has proof of that it has to change its whois practise due to a complain
of a offical local entity. Just assuming that one might be in breach
of various privacy regulations (which might not even be applicable)
is not enough. It therefore has absolutely nothing to do with what
registrars or registries like to do but only with what they have to 
do by local regulation. And just to mention it again. This can happen
even if we change the current whois privacy policy to something else.

One thing we certainly are in agreement is that we should get this
over with and focus on the real improvements.

tom

Am 03.05.2005 schrieb Ross Rader:
> -----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-----
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w