Re: Re: [ga-sys] Registrants Charter - FREEDOMS - Part 1
on 5/17/01 2:29 PM, NameCritic at email@example.com wrote:
I respect the opinions of those that want it hidden, but
> would not opt to do so myself.
And visa versa for me. Thank you for the support.
> There are several things that should not be something you HAVE to do in
> order to get a domain name.
> Joanna, people do have enough ways to avoid too much real info is posted on
> a domain name in whois. I don't think any laws are needed in that regard,
In view of the fact that a relevant law is already in force,
Registry-Registrar contracts with respect to personal data may need to be
changed. In the alternative, ICANN ignores the issue, then, as William has
correctly noted, Registries and Registrars will not be capable of complying
with both ICANN contracts and EU law, however willing they may be to do so.
As ICANN is a US Corporation, and therefore not subject to the law per se,
it seems it has become necessary for the GA/ DNSO to provide policy guidance
on this issue, to empower the Board to make necessary contract changes and
things of that sort.
t is my conclusion that a resolution is in order for the GA to take to
Stockholm, (which is after all in the EU jurisdiction, one couldn't chose a
better way to build good will with the host nation)....a resolution to
recommend ICANN adopts a policy of compliance with the EU Law with respect
to personal data and in particular WHOIS.
How such a resolution can then be implemented is another issue, will not be
easy to work out and needs more time than we have between now and Stockholm.
But the least the GA can do is send a clear message to the world that the
will of the people of 15 nations will be be given all due respect in this
Chris, your further comments below are right on target IMO.
Thoughts about this approach?
> however one might be needed if the Registrars refuse to give each registrant
> of domain names some suggestions in this regard.
> The danger is for uninformed users who register a domain name. They do not
> know the options because no effort is made to make sure they do know the
> options. That should be the responsibiltiy of the Registrar, not the
> individual. They should assume every individual wants the right to not have
> all of their info publicly displayed. Just because people haven't asked for
> an option is NOT an indicator that it would not be desired if offered.
> In the US, in states that have Megan's Law, there is a cd rom at each
> Sheriff's Department that has the info on all registered sex offenders that
> live in that county. Anyone has the right to go down and view the cd rom to
> see if someone in their neighborhood is a danger to their children. Very few
> people actually go look at the cd rom. That doesn't mean they want their
> children molested. It means they don't have the proper knowledge given to
> them about why they should go down to take a look.
> Just an analogy. Not meant to be inflammatory. I consider the analogy a much
> more serious matter. Since I run a missing children's organization, it's
> just the first one I thought of. I publish materials all the time to inform
> more people about the cd rom and why they should go view it. Either some org
> should do that for Registrants of domain names. To do that some approval to
> contact Domain Name Registyrant should be afforded such an organization
> without it being considered spam. otherwise the Registrars should do it
> themselves as a matter of responsibility, which unfortunately I find most of
> them lacking in.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-sys" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html