RE: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal: deletion instead of unmasking
- To: "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal: deletion instead of unmasking
- From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 15:45:37 -0400
Wendy, a question for you on this idea -- are you suggesting such an option
would exist, unless there is a court order/or other legitimate legal
request? In that case, isn't the registry or registrar still required to
provide any information that they have, as a ISP would have to do?
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal: deletion instead of
I've made this alternate proposal for "correction" of data before,
but since we're sharing written suggestions for amendment, here's mine:
In lieu of having data corrected or revealed, registrant shall have
the option of allowing the domain name to lapse. Where the
registrant requests the "lapse" option, the domain name shall be
stopped from resolving and registrant's identifying information shall
not be turned over to the requesting party. Registrant may request
suspension pending resolution of the dispute in a "John Doe"
(anonymous) proceeding, or cancellation (where registrant does not
respond or challenge the request). In either case, registrant's
information shall not be turned over.
At 08:47 AM 9/25/2006 -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
>- re Proposed 6, Under correcting Inaccurate Whois data
>I still have problems with the phrase 'timely manner' and would be
>comfortable with something like ' time manner but not less then 60
>days' or some such measure.
>- also Re Proposed Language 4: I want to reiterate how important I
>think it is that the consumer be kept informed, and reminded, of the
>purpose for which various data is kept and various data is
>published. I also think it is important that there be a pointer back
>to authoritative language on that purpose (ICANN theoretically can
>provide the authoritative language) not matter what translation a
>registrar may choose to provide for their customers.
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org