Elections

[KathrynKL at AOL.COM]

Cheryl,
Have you seen our NCUC page with its Whois postings at _www.ncdnhc.org?  _
(http://www.ncdnhc.org?  Under)  Under  "Summary of National Laws Affecting Data
Privacy."  This is a table I  worked on with a registrar on the Whois Task
Force after we faced serious  questions whether privacy and data protection laws
apply to the personal data  held in the Whois databases (which, of course,
they do).

Under the link "Examine our policy statements and record of activities,"  you
will find a number of our Whois statements and the accumulated work of many
years of our Constituency.

As Milton has pointed out, we have a special role, mandated in our charter,
of working on behalf of both noncommercial organizations and noncommercial
speech in the ICANN arena. It is a unique and special role.

Best,
Kathy Kleiman



<<You make many good points.  I would like to continue the  discussion about
what the right balance would be.  One question: in your  view, who are the
"anti-privacy" interests and what are their  motivations?

Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of  Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
424  JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
(801)  422-2312
prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu

>>> Dan Krimm  <dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM> 10/28/2007 4:16 pm >>>
At 3:09 PM -0600  10/28/07, Cheryl Preston wrote:

>BUT, I currently see no hope that the  global consensus is going to reach
>total abandonment of WHOIS without  replacing it with something that
>allows, upon service of an appropriate  court order or in compliance with
>treaty rights or otherwise, some  mechanism whereby those to whom ICANN and
>IANA (and their contractually  empowered, substructure agents) have granted
>power to access to the root  can be held responsible for seriously illegal
>activity based on  international law standards.



Certainly, and as I understand it  (and certainly in my own personal case)
NCUC's support of motion #3 is not  intended to just leave it at that, but
rather to motivate a return to  negotiations on a more equal basis, where
all parties will have an incentive  to deliberate in good faith.

The point of sunsetting the status quo  arrangements for Whois is not to
permanently abandon it, but rather to create  the negotiating environment
for a more properly balanced solution where  justified access to identifying
information is granted in specific cases to  specific agents (and abuse of
that access is punished) and personal privacy  of natural-person registrants
is protected as a default.

If  anti-privacy interests come into negotiations with everything they want,
and  the only possible outcome of negotiation is for them to lose something,
there  is utterly no incentive for them to negotiate in good faith.  They
may  try to finesse their rhetoric in a way so as to indicate an  abstract
consideration of privacy concerns, but when push comes to shove and  the
final specific and detailed result is defined, they will not  budge.

Expiring the Whois status quo is not the end, it is intended as a  new
beginning.  Sometimes you have to take a step back (and "over") in  order to
avoid an obstruction from taking additional steps forward.  If  the status
quo cannot serve as a platform to move forward (as experience with  this
year's Whois Working Group demonstrated pretty well), then it is only  an
obstruction.

Dan






************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20071029/ca3808d7/attachment.html>