[registrars] Revised draft for TF2

[Siegfried Langenbach]

Hallo Rob,

see slide 11 from Georges presentation in Rom,
destributed on Tue, 2 Mar 2004 by ebroitman at register.com
on this list.

siegfried

On 13 Apr 2004 at 10:02, Rob Hall wrote:

From:           	"Rob Hall" <rob at momentous.com>
To:             	<registrars at dnso.org>
Subject:        	RE: [registrars] Revised draft for TF2
Date sent:      	Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:02:57 -0400

> Thomas,
> 
> Can you tell me on what basis you say buk whois is 100% illegal in Europe ?
> 
> My understanding of your privacy laws is that you must inform the user of
> how their information will be disseminated.  Is it not true that if you tell
> the user that you will publish their information, and give it to whoever
> applies under your bulk whois contract, that you are covered legally ?
> 
> You have informed the user of how their information is to be used, and
> distributed. It is then the users choice to continue given that they now
> know the playing field.
> 
> You also make a statement that seems to unlink whois and transfers.  But
> they are in fact directly linked.
> 
> I also believe that one of the primary reasons we have a distributed whois
> for com/net is to promote competition, not lessen it.  I am at a loss as to
> how making whois information available to the public hurts competition.  I
> believe just the opposite occurs.
> 
> I believe that if you unilaterally break your ICANN contract for any reason,
> you should face enforement and penalties.  If a big european telco broke
> their ICANN contract by not providing whois anymore, I suspect they would be
> found in breach, and no longer have a contract.  Exactly as would any
> non-european registrar who broke their contract.
> 
> Rob.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:12 AM
> To: registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Revised draft for TF2
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> the discussion of the last days has been exceptional usefull and
> helped me to revise my first draft (attached). Beside referring
> to the changes I made in the document I would like to explain some
> of my thoughts behind certain passages in the draft. Lets start with
> the changes:
> 
> 1. Pauls data fields were incorporated
> 2. The Tech-C data fields where changed to a Tech-C Point of Contact
>    field as suggested by Tom Barrett and Paul
> 3. The possibility to display additional data as requested by Elana
>    has been incorporated
> 4. A reference to the original use of WHOIS as requested by Brian has
>    been incorporated
> 5. Wording has been changed to reflect that we haven't voted on this
>    matter. This was requested by Tim (just a tiny change)
> 6. Three Whois levels have been cut down to two due to the request of
>    Jean-Michel
> 
> The only two debated issuess I didn't change is the request to strike
> the Bulkwhois obligation and the general statement about national
> legislations and whois. Please let me explain my reasons for not changing
> it.
> 
> Bulkwhois
> 
> This one is rather simple. Bulkwhois is 100% illegal in Europe and
> I'm pretty sure that this holds true for most  other countries with
> privacy regulations. I can't imagine one company in Germany entering
> in such a agreement. Therefore to still be able to provide a leveled
> playing field this generally unloved obligation must go.
> 
> National legislations and whois
> 
> I totally understand the concerns some might have but I would like to
> ask them to consider two points:
> 
> 1. Is it really likely that such a provision  will effect competition
>    in a negative way if all necessary data for competition must be made
>    available? Please keep in mind that we only talk about whois
>    information and not about countries passing laws prohibiting
>    transfers. This would indeed be, even if highly unlikely, a problem.
> 
> 2. Would such a provision not only be an acknowledgement of the existing
>    cirumstances. Being realistic one must admit that we already
>    have the situation where a company y in a country x could decide to shut
>    down whois if their local legislation demands it without having to
>    fear any kind of penalties by ICANN. I guess it would be a very
>    interesting showcase to see ICANN argueing with EU officals and lawyers
>    why i.e. a big european telco is not providing whois anymore.
> 
> Thats it for the moment.
> 
> Best
> 
> tom
> 
> --
> 
> Thomas Keller
> 
> Domain Services
> Schlund + Partner AG
> Brauerstrasse 48         		Tel. +49-721-91374-534
> 76135 Karlsruhe, Germany               	Fax  +49-721-91374-215
> http://www.schlund.de                  	tom at schlund.de
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20040413/3616803a/attachment.html>