Urgent: your response needed

[KathrynKL at AOL.COM]

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 This motion  should NOT be withdrawn if Motion #1 passes.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20070916/856f309f/attachment.html>