If other people think it's important to put it back in, I'll put it back in. I didn't object, but I don't think it's an important point, either. I actively oppose any language that tells ICANN to enforce privacy laws. That's the job of governments, not of ICANN. ICANN: "We're sanctioning you for violating law X." Registrar: "We didn't violate law X, and besides, it doesn't apply to us." Then what? More lawsuits? R's, John
John L ha scritto:
I didn't reinstate the WHOIS privacy stuff since I saw only one comment asking for it. But the section on resellers does say that registrars should have contracts that pass through all registrant responsibilities, which covers the most important point, I think.
The main point (second bullet in draft 2) was that registrars who violate whatever privacy laws or policies might exist (without entering into what they should be, since on that we disagree) should be sanctioned and, in serious cases, deaccredited, exactly as when they violate whatever laws or policies require them to disclose certain information (again, without entering into what they should be). In other words, enforcement should work in both directions; not only for the policies that require disclosure, but also for the policies that require privacy. To me it seems quite an obvious and non-controversial point, so could you just reinstate it?
In any case, the original Whois section was agreed text - no one had asked to remove it in the round of comments to draft 2, not even you. So I do not understand why we have to reopen the entire discussion once again - we just needed to incorporate comments to draft 2 into a final draft.