[registrars] Revised draft for TF2
Rob Hall
rob at momentous.com
Tue Apr 13 16:26:16 UTC 2004
Tom,
The "purpose" of the data absolutely has been defined from a users
perspective. We tell them what will be done with the data and how it is
published.
I find it curious that first there was the statement that it is illegal in
the EU, and now we are into a debate about member states possibly having a
law, as the EU one doesn't seem to be contravened. Sure, a country could
pass a law that essentially outlaws being a Registrar. Countries are free
to do what they want. But just because a country chooses not to have
Registrars based there doesn't mean mine will, nor should it affect my
business.
As for Canada's privacy laws, they are similar to almost every other
countries, including the EU's. Inform the end user of what will happen with
their data, and give them a choice.
Nothing says data can not be published ... it says a user must know how it
will be.
Rob.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom at schlund.de]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:15 PM
To: Rob Hall
Cc: registrars at dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Revised draft for TF2
Am 13.04.2004 schrieb Rob Hall:
> Actually, Slide 11 doesn't say 100% illegal. It talks about allowing it
in
> certain circumstances.
Well Slide 11 says:
Bulk access ?
- No, this is a disproportionate privacy infringing step; unless a very
convincing, specific case may be made which has to be followed by due
process.
I'm not a lawyer but the way I read these lines they say that Bulk
access might be possible if a court orders such a action. This means
to me that it can not be part of a contract. Sorry for the 100% which
might not be 100% true but at the end of the day it has the same outcome.
> Which is exactly my point. Tell users what is being done with the data.
> Inform them, and let them make a choice. This is what most privacy laws
are
> about. Not stoping publication, but informing users.
>
> In fact, in that same presentation, slides 3 and 4 clearly lay out what is
> required for notification of the user. Slide 5 asks the question "must
a
> data subject consent to the disclosure of his collected data" and the
answer
> is "No, if disclosure was part of the processing purpose, of which the
data
> subject has been informed". QED.
Two things you have to keep in mind is that
a.) This is only the EU directive and not
I Memberstate law which might be different and even more restrictive.
II does not reflect privacy legislations in Australia, Japan or Canada.
III does not reflect possible future privacy legislation.
b.) That everything depends on the purpose of the data and that this has
not been defined yet.
tom
> Rob.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Siegfried Langenbach
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:32 AM
> To: registrars at dnso.org; Rob Hall
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Revised draft for TF2
>
>
> 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
> >
>
Gruss,
tom
(__)
(OO)_____
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w
More information about the registrars
mailing list