On 12/14/2009 03:05 PM, James Seng wrote:
Sorry for not able to attend the call (its 2am on my side) but is there a summary of the meeting or transcript available? I am interested in the ALAC position on privacy statement.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn"<gbruen@knujon.com> Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 1:55 pm
In advance of today's policy discussion I have prepared this brief report of abuse of privacy/proxy services by illicit pharmacies.
I find this jump-to-conclusion approach to be very disturbing. What criteria are used to say that a pharmacy is "illicit"? Here in Santa Cruz there are "medical marijuana" clinics that are 100% lawful under California State law but 100% unlawful under US Federal law. ICANN is in no position to undertake to distinguish "licit" from "illicit". And what criteria is used to say that a business is in "abuse of privacy/proxy services"? It is often 100% lawful for people and corporations to not hang the identities of their operators on a shingle beyond a minimal contact for the receipt of legal process. It really concerns me that ICANN is being used as a private hired gun through which everyone from the trademark industry to "consumer advocates" are trying to create an e-vigilante shortcut past well established legal due processes and protections. --karl--