ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Commercial vs. Non-commercial

  • To: "Bertrand Chapelle" <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Commercial vs. Non-commercial
  • From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 09:14:58 -0400

Just some brief notes of clarification. Keep in mind that we are not
debating what is "right" anymore but what there is "agreement" about or
the level of agreement/disagreement, so that we can transmit a report.

>>> "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx> 5/31/2007 7:10
AM >>>
>   - legal entities pose no problem (privacy protection is not
>   applicable

All kinds of company data can be considered proprietary and private in
a variety of contexts. The idea that legal persons have _no_ (as in
"zero") data protection rights seems wrong both legally and in a common
sense way. What we are talking about is that legal persons have less
need to shield basic contact information (address, phone, email).
Perhaps the report should clarify that and not make more sweeping
statements about privacy protection "not being applicable." 

>   - privacy of individuals with absolutely non-commercial activities
>   must be protected
>   - individuals conducting mainly commercial activities should
>   not enjoy the same benefits.

Disagree here. Individuals doing business out of their homes have the
same privacy rights as noncommercial individuals. This issue becomes
more important to us (NCUC) because by the IPR lawyers typical
definition of "absolutely noncommercial" no soul on earth ever
qualifies. There is, at any rate, no such thing as a "noncommercial"
individual or a "Commercial" individual. There is only
commercial/noncommercial activity. That is why we cannot agree to any
formulation that tries to classify individual persons in that way.

>So, may I suggest the following approach :

Again, my understanding is that at this stage we are simply trying to
find out how much agreement there is and we are not developing new

>   - in order to benefit from a protection of their personal
>   individual registrants would self-declare as individuals and
indicate they
>   do not intend to "primarily" conduct a commercial activity under
this domain
>   name (the word primarily or an equivalent is key here)

We cannot agree to this. A legal/natural person distinction is
sufficient. Add to that the fact that there will be several mechanisms
to reveal contact info for natural persons who appear to be breaking the
law, and there is simply no need for such a distinction.

The issue is not "primary vs non-primary," it is privacy for natural

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy