Urgent: your response needed

[Dan Krimm]

Just to say officially that I agree with Milton in support of motion #3,
including the provision that this not be withdrawn even if motion #1 passes.

Also, as a WG participant on behalf of NCUC, I also agree with the comments
below.  Once I realized what had transpired in sub-group A, where the
reveal function was defined, I (and others) tried to object to it all
along, as it seems like a total loophole to the access provisions we were
trying to define and balance in sub-group B.  (Agreement levels surrounding
access types were also distorted in the final report, but ultimately that
was a decision by fiat of the chair, so in the end there was nothing
procedural available to us within the WG  process as defined and
implemented to enable us to fix it.)

Dan



At 11:20 PM -0400 9/16/07, KathrynKL at AOL.COM wrote:
>I wholeheartedly support Milton's motion, and Ross' motion.  I urge a vote
>in favor of Milton's motion as a strong statement from the NCUC -- one
>that our Council members can carry forward to the difficult debates in the
>Names Council ahead.
>
>I have a few additional comments:
>
>It has taken me a awhile to review the WG report, but I have done so, and
>what struck me the most is the REVEAL section.  It has no relationship to
>any real-world scenario I know.  In the real-world, a trademark owner
>sends a cease and desist letter to a person, or his attorney, and the
>parties can choose to respond, or not respond.
>
>The idea that anyone MUST respond to a demand that is inaccurate,
>overbroad, intimidating or threatening just because another individual or
>big business alleges there is an illegality (and they all always do) is
>not consistent with law. (I note that this appears to have been quite
>controversial in the WG and I appreciate all you did to argue it.)
>
>I recommend that we ask a data protection commission -- like Canada's --
>for a review of this section and whether it is consistent with national
>data protection laws.  If not, what changes would they offer?  Their
>changes would have the benefit of precedent and national law conformity.
>
>I would be happy to work with the our Council and Executive Committee
>members on such contact.
>
>Best,
>
>Kathy
>
>p.s. After nearly 6 months as an attorney with a major Internet law firm,
>I have found the vast majority of cease and desist to be unfounded and
>inaccurate.  To lose a layer of data protection for not responding in 24
>or even 72 hours is crazy, as that is not even enough time to find an
>attorney (in most cases).
>
>
>
>In a message dated 9/16/2007 2:07:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>mueller at SYR.EDU writes:
>
>I am asking ALL NCUC members to express their opinion on this by replying
>to this email. Just check one of the two boxes. Add comments if you have
>any.
>
>
>
>NCUC should respond to the Draft Staff Report on Whois by expressing its
>support for Motion #3 contained in the report. That motion declares that
>there is no consensus on existing Whois policy and asks that the Whois
>portions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement be "sunsetted" (i.e.,
>expired) at the end of 2008. This motion should NOT be withdrawn if Motion
>#1 passes.
>
>
>
>/___/ AGREE
>
>
>
>/__/ DISAGREE
>
>
>
>You can reply openly to the list or privately to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>See what's new at <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170>AOL.com
>and <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169>Make AOL
>Your Homepage.