<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-dow123] Comments on the report - NCUC
- To: <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-dow123] Comments on the report - NCUC
- From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:06:54 -0400
I have a conflicting call at 10:30 and will join you late. In the
interim, I would like to make the following points:
1) Only the oPOC proposal should be considered and fleshed out in this
proposal. As Ross said, it has no business standing as an equal
partner with the oPOC. It must be in the report later as a
constituency presentation of IPC. Or as a much later introduced
minority report.
2) Steve's proposal is imposes an insane amount of liability on
registrars (imagine you are a registrar evaluating my request for
privacy because I believe my soon to be ex-spouse wanted to stalk me.
Then suppose the registrar denies the request, my personal data is
revealed, and I get
stalked and hurt. You can bet I'll sue the registrars for millions,
and I
won't be the only one. If someone is killed, their business is
dead.). What
works for ccTLDs with government protection does not work for private
companies w/o it.
3) Existing outside comment
Where shall the report put existing outside comment, in particular the
messages from data protection commissioners individually and through
the article 29 working party that the oPOC satisfies their desire for
privacy of personal data and continuing collection and availability of
that data on an as-needed, as-legally-allowed basis. We have had a lot
of high level comment, particularly surrounding Marrakech, and it must
be included.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|