John L ha scritto:
I went through the entire archive of the RAA-WG list (126 messages not counting troll nonsense), and updated the document to try to address all of the open concerns, and to take out stuff that's either resolved like setting up escrow, or on which there's no consensus like what belongs in WHOIS.
Is there a redlined version or a punctual list of changes? Anyway, I would ask you to reinstate the section on Whois. There were several comments to the first draft asking for it, and I think that we had reached a reasonable compromise that, without entering into contested territory, provided some suggestions that went in the interest of registrants: ===== Whois and data protection issues PROBLEMS: The issue of whether it is appropriate for ICANN to require registrars to disclose information about registrars through the Whois protocol and service is a contested one, and is being addressed through other ICANN processes. However, whatever policy will be agreed for Whois, there are some basic legal issues that should be addressed in the RAA. For example, registrars should be required to pass on, to third parties accessing the data, any requirement set forth by ICANN in terms of limitation of use and data protection. Also, under ICANN's responsibility to prevent misbehaviour by registrars, proven breach of any privacy and data protection rights enjoyed by registrants should cause sanctions by ICANN. PROPOSED ACTIONS: 10.1.In clauses 3.3.3. and 3.3.6. of the RAA, it should be specified that the registrar must require, through the use of a written agreement or contractual clauses, any subcontractor or party however accessing the data to abide by whatever policy ICANN establishes for access and use of the data. 10.2.A clause should be added to the RAA so that any violation of privacy or data protection rights enjoyed by registrants, be them established by ICANN policies or by applicable law, is cause for specific sanctions, up to deaccreditation in case of repeated breaches. ===== Also, you removed the second bullet (and added a new one) in section 4 - why? Finally, you removed the section on intended beneficiaries of the contract. I've seen that Bret already asked to reinstate it, and I support that. (I had made it a separate section at the end to give it more prominence, but, as you like.) Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------