[Rt4-whois] Clean copy

Wed Nov 30 19:25:05 UTC 2011

About apllicable laws (pg. 14) and law enforcement (13), I agree with
Peter, no consensus about applicable laws.

California's? Let's see: even international transborder treaties could
reach WHOIS at some point with human rights, consumer rights, even
copyright law could apply besides privacy laws. It's a grey area.

Also, in final instance the data should be considered "personal" even for
corporations, entities and companies being shown as non personal entities?

In Brazil this diference is much clear, since for years we are only
allowing companies to register com.br, not the individuals. But this rule
changed some years ago. To register a domain name you need a number related
to USA's IRS (or Inland Revenue in Emily's home) even if both databases
don't merge. But, again, how to make the data accurable without a
validation in other sources? The whole Whois database should be considered
protected by copyright laws as a literary creation alike?

For accuracy purposes - the main purpose for Whois bilaterally speaking -
we must trust in the registrant, the registrars and it's done? Which
sources to rely on, if "why?" still need to be addressed?

Regards,

Omar

Including any and all local and national laws that regulate and/or control
the collection, display and distribution of personal data via WHOIS.”

The Team understands the “applicable laws” reference as limited to privacy
laws [pnettlefo1] <#133f5e9f5be4ccd5__msocom_1> and regulation (SK)
comment: I agree with Emily should change to “encompass all laws but many
mainly focus on privacy laws and regulations” and notes ICANN’s existing
consensus policy relating to conflicts with privacy laws. The Team
considered but determined not to include within the definition
international agreements and regional laws, recognizing that such laws are
enforceable only to the extent incorporated into the domestic laws of
contracting states.

 ------------------------------

 [pnettlefo1] <#133f5e9f5be4ccd5__msoanchor_1>PN: I disagreed with this on
13 September also, and still do. A law requiring disclosure of personal
data seems equally relevant to me. Again, I do not recall reaching
consensus on this new defintion.

2011/11/30 Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>

> Hi Alice
>
> Great work - we are nearly there.
>
> I have a couple of points on the consolidated draft:
>
> Exec Summary - reading well - I think we should include the
> recommendations here, for an encapsulated document which  99.9% of people
> who look at this report will be reading.
> P 9 - Lynn made a table of contents for insertion after the Executive
> Summary.  This is a good idea, and if we adopt it, we can delete Kathy's
> insertion on p9 and go back to her original para.
>
> P29 - the Dakar versions (of proxy/privacy definitions) to be used
> throughout please
>
> p44 - please move the highlighted text into an appendix
>
> Chapter 8 (the GAP ANALYSIS) - this is important, is an older version that
> was superseded yesterday.  This is the latest version.  I've removed all
> the highlighting. It divides the Gap analysis into two (Chapter 7 - or
> whatever the correct number is - Understanding the needs of stakeholders)
> then we put in the consumer trust text after that, then move on to Chapter
> 8 (or whatever number it is) which should be Gap Analysis/Conclusions. Bill
> is currently reviewing that language.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> On 30 November 2011 16:31, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Review Team Members,
>>
>> Please find attached the latest versions of the master document and
>> appendices. (clean copy – 30 November 16:30 UTC – Alice Jansen)
>> Since I have applied formatting suggestions Kathy emailed me to the
>> document, I would be very grateful if penholders of chapters could please
>> check the formatting structure of their chapters. Does this match your
>> train on thought? If not, please email me asap so that I can rectify it for
>> the subsequent version.
>> Documents will be available on the wiki in a couple of minutes.
>> The files need additional work (typo hunting etc) but I would be very
>> grateful if you could please read these documents very carefully and flag
>> any missing piece of information or inconsistency you notice.
>>
>> Many thanks in advance,
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Alice
>>
>> --
>> *Alice Jansen*
>> Assistant, Organizational Reviews
>> *6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5*
>> *B-1040 Brussels*
>> *Belgium*
>> Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64
>> Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56
>> Skype: alice_jansen_icann
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rt4-whois mailing list
>> Rt4-whois at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
>
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
> emily at emilytaylor.eu
>
> *www.etlaw.co.uk*
>
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
> Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111130/a6c58889/attachment.html 