Urgent: your response needed

[Cheryl Preston]

Thanks for this input.  I appreciate your analysis of the section.  In light of this, I withdraw my DISAGREE vote and vote AGREE.

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
>>> <KathrynKL at AOL.COM> 09/16/07 9:20 PM >>>
 
 
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