[Rt4-whois] Fwd: [lac-discuss-en] .CAT WHOIS Change Request
omar at kaminski.adv.br
Mon Jan 23 23:02:44 UTC 2012
Dear RT, FYI.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Subject: [lac-discuss-en] .CAT WHOIS Change Request
To: "<whois-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <whois-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Cc: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Please see the announcement here:
Apropos, I am developing the Draft for the ALAC response to the WHOIS RT
Report. My draft seeks to layout a framework for the At-Large principle
regarding claims of privacy and our position on proxy registrations that we
should adopt. In general, I do believe there is convergence between the
principle I espouse and extant case.
In the virtual world defined by the DNS, we accept that each of us is
connected to all of us. And while there is a time-honoured tradition that
parties to a contract may choose the legal jurisdiction to which they will
submit for binding claims and judgments, we hardly think it useful in such
a 'one-to-many' relationship for a claim of suzerainty of any particular
national law or, set of laws.
The At-Large is properly mindful of claims to privacy for one or other
purpose and should seek every accommodation for such claims, so long as
these do not degrade the ability of any user to effectively seek redress of
grievance. In my view, the Internet as 'commons' is, of right, good public
policy. And as such, anonymity of the pamphleteer is an enduring
objective. This aside, we hold that redress begins with knowing who is
liable and, where to find them, all relevant protocols observed.
In this context, we should care less whether privacy rights or claims are
connected to a natural person or a corporation. As odious to the senses for
some as it may be, it is largely settled that corporations are personified
in the law; U.S. jurisprudence of over 100 years seems to have greatly
influenced the laws of many nations in this regard.
Not sensible to fight that fight all over again.
To my mind, the defining matter/ issue inre the proxy relationship is an
acceptance of a variant on agency rules. And here I'm relying on expression
of the common law. Plus, seeing as the WHOIS requirements are enshrined in
the RAA, the law of torts. Every proxy relationship that propose a privacy
registration must accept that a) the proxy provider acts on expressed
actual authority of the registrant b) the proxy provider accepts strict
liability for the registrant on whose behalf it acts.
The Draft Statement should be available by cob Friday, 27th Jan.
- Carlton Samuels
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
More information about the Rt4-whois