ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection"

  • To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT" <Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on "privacy and data protection"
  • From: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:38:41 +0000

Of course those same countries have consumer protection laws, the enforcement 
of which rely on identifying the offender. The _use_ of the data should 
certainly be subject to national law but the collection and verification is 
necessary as a baseline. That said, I don't believe THIS PDP is a referendum on 
Thick Whois but more of a discussion on parity amongst registries, the rest of 
whom have implemented it.  I think it will be difficult to make a "rights" 
argument that only .COM and .NET should have thin whois.  The notion of thick 
whois was discussed a great deal in the context of the guidebook and it can 
certainly be discussed again but it doesn't seem to me that this limited PDP is 
the place to discuss it.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 11:31 PM
To: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT
Cc: Joy Liddicoat
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] a modest amendment to our charter point on 
"privacy and data protection"


Some are international law not aspirational at all.
And it is time ICANN, which wishes to operate on the International stage, 
starts to give some respect and adherence to these laws.


On 13 Oct 2012, at 16:26, Jonathan Zuck wrote:

> With few exceptions, these are aspirational, which cannot be our mandate. We 
> can certainly discuss impact on "legally established rights."  I think it 
> would be far more productive, and helpful, however,  to frame the discussion 
> in terms of relative protections.
> Jonathan
> On Oct 13, 2012, at 4:10 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 13 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Hoover, Carolyn wrote:
>>> Avri,
>>> Are these the 3 rights described in some place where the description 
>>> is generally accepted as valid?  In other words, would the working 
>>> group have to define these or has this already been done?
>> There are varied sources.
>> As In anything defined in International Law, there are various sources.  Yet 
>> that facts does not lessen the importance of considering them.  We may 
>> decide at some point that there is isn't an impact, but the question needs 
>> to be asked.
>> This is just a quick accumulation of references.  We can certainly undertake 
>> to produce a set of quotes from International sources that implicitly give 
>> the definition.
>> The rights are defined in several International covenants.
>> From the Universal Declaration of Human rights 
>> <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>
>> Article 19.
>>  * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right 
>> includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive 
>> and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of 
>> frontiers.
>> Article 17.
>>  * (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in 
>> association with others.
>>  * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
>> Article 20.
>>  * (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and 
>> association.
>>  * (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
>> From the  Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
>> <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm>  (this one is binding on 
>> the countries that singed it)
>> Article 17
>> 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference 
>> with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his 
>> honour and reputation.
>> 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such 
>> interference or attacks.
>> Article 19:
>> 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right 
>> shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and 
>> ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in 
>> print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
>> Article 22:
>> 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with 
>> others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection 
>> of his interests.
>> 3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the 
>> International Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning 
>> Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to 
>> take legislative measures which would prejudice, or to apply the law 
>> in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that 
>> Convention
>> Other references can be found in various national instruments:
>> e.g United States Bill of Rights, European Convention on Human Rights and 
>> the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
>> Freedom of association is often know as Freedom of Assembly
>> In the IGF, a coalistions defined them qas:  
>> <http://irpcharter.org/campaign/>
>> Everyone has the right to seek, receive, and impart information freely on 
>> the Internet without censorship or other interference. Everyone also has the 
>> right to associate freely through and on the Internet, for social, 
>> political, cultural or other purposes.
>> Everyone has the right to privacy online. This includes freedom from 
>> surveillance, the right to use encryption, and the right to online 
>> anonymity. Everyone also has the right to data protection, including control 
>> over personal data collection, retention, processing, disposal and 
>> disclosure.
>> ----

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy