RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
Hi, Chris, >>> "Christopher Gibson" <cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx> 5/30/2007 8:17:14 PM >>> >I understand from your views below that you are concerned >about potential abuse in connection with the commercial vs. >non-commercial distinction within the OPOC system and would, >in fact, like to expand protection to extend beyond existing norms >for data protection and privacy. I do not accept the premise that shielding private contact data of natural persons constitutes an expansion of protection. As the agreed analysis shows, there is no clear line that can be drawn between commercial and noncommercial, and there is nothing in existing norms or law that establishes that distinction clearly enough to make it the basis for governing classification of domain name registrants globally. Plus, there will be ways to access the information if a problem develops. >Thus, I am not surprised that [registrars] would choose >to voice opposition. While their position should certainly >be taken into account, it should not be determinative in >developing a proper approach and policy in relation to >OPOC's scope and registrations. You may not fully understand the intent of my comment, which simply reflects the nature of the process we are in and the stage of report drafting we are at. The report is supposed to formulate options and express which ones command agreement, or lower levels of support. If the registrars say they don't agree with something, that is just a fact that needs to be reflected in the report. It doesn't matter whether one thinks it is a "proper approach." Same goes for your view. You and Lynn think there should be a commercial/noncommercial distinction and that needs to be reflected. My judgment (reflected in my proposing amendment to the language) is that business user interests support making that distinction, registrars and noncommercial users don't, others need to weigh in.