January 2012 - lac-discuss-en

=? Iso-8859-1? Q? ENCUESTA_PARA_ALSes_-_Reuni = F3n_N? = =? Iso-8859-1? Q? _43_de_ICANN_Costa_Rica_ !!!?=
by josefranciscoarce＠gmail.com Jan. 24, 2012

Jan. 24, 2012

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: =? Iso-8859-1? Q? ENCUESTA_PARA_ALSes_-_Reuni = F3n_N? = =? Iso-8859-1? Q? _43_de_ICANN_Costa_Rica_ !!!?= From: josefranciscoarce(a)gmail.com Dear, The Working Group for the event LACRALO Costa Rica is working, as discussed in recent meetings, in conjunction with ALAC and the At-Large Staff to have a series of events for representatives of ALSes attending the meeting in Costa Rica 11 to March 16, 2012. Events to date, January 24 2012, no response. The objectives of these events are: ● Inform and train members of the ALS about ICANN, At -Large and the various policies that are discussed in ICANN. ● Improve and increase participation in the process of ALS ICANN policy development and At-Large American users pra America and the Caribbean. Events planned for Costa Rica are: ● A daily briefing during the five days of the meeting ICANN, from 07:00 am to 09:00 AM. These sessions will be led by ICANN staff and At-Large and are intended to empower the LACRALO representatives about ICANN, its structure, key Internet related policies and participate in the discussions of them. ● A Showcase will offer our ALSes. ● A General Assembly of the Region face. Working Group for the event LACRALO Costa Rica would like to ask the following questions to better organize the event. Please ask them to answer all questions by 31 January at 23:59 UTC on the following link http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LDTGY7B Do not respond to questions or do so poorly will be made by Working Group and that you are not interested in participating in Costa Rica event. Esperermos to meet everyone in Costa Rica:) Jose Arce President of LACRALO _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ec79506203.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] [WHOIS-WG] .CAT WHOIS Change Request
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 23, 2012

Jan. 23, 2012

Thanks. Got fooled by the subject line. Are we planning to replay to that? Alan (with apologies for adding the E in your name!) At 23/01/2012 05:40 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >...the ALAC Response to the WHOIS RT report... > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Carleton, is the statement that you are drafting for posting on Jan >27th the ALAC response to the WHOIS RT Report, or a comment on the >RSTEP request? > >Alan > > >At 23/01/2012 10:09 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >>Dear Colleagues: >>Please see the announcement here: >> >><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm >> >> >>Apropos, I am developing the Draft for the ALAC response to the >>WHOIS RT Report. My draft seeks to layout a framework for the >>At-Large principle regarding claims of privacy and our position on >>proxy registrations that we should adopt. In general, I do believe >>there is convergence between the principle I espouse and extant case. >> >>In the virtual world defined by the DNS, we accept that each of us >>is connected to all of us. And while there is a time-honoured >>tradition that parties to a contract may choose the legal >>jurisdiction to which they will submit for binding claims and >>judgments, we hardly think it useful in such a 'one-to-many' >>relationship for a claim of suzerainty of any particular national >>law or, set of laws. >> >>The At-Large is properly mindful of claims to privacy for one or >>other purpose and should seek every accommodation for such claims, >>so long as these do not degrade the ability of any user to >>effectively seek redress of grievance. In my view, the Internet as >>'commons' is, of right, good public policy. And as such, anonymity >>of the pamphleteer is an enduring objective. This aside, we hold >>that redress begins with knowing who is liable and, where to find >>them, all relevant protocols observed. >> >>In this context, we should care less whether privacy rights or >>claims are connected to a natural person or a corporation. As >>odious to the senses for some as it may be, it is largely settled >>that corporations are personified in the law; U.S. jurisprudence of >>over 100 years seems to have greatly influenced the laws of many >>nations in this regard. >> >>Not sensible to fight that fight all over again. >> >>To my mind, the defining matter/ issue inre the proxy relationship >>is an acceptance of a variant on agency rules. And here I'm relying >>on expression of the common law. Plus, seeing as the WHOIS >>requirements are enshrined in the RAA, the law of torts. Every >>proxy relationship that propose a privacy registration must accept >>that a) the proxy provider acts on expressed actual authority of >>the registrant b) the proxy provider accepts strict liability for >>the registrant on whose behalf it acts. >> >>The Draft Statement should be available by cob Friday, 27th Jan. >> >>- Carlton Samuels >> >>============================== >>Carlton A Samuels >>Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 >>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >>============================= >>_______________________________________________ >>WHOIS-WG mailing list >><mailto:WHOIS-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org>WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg >> >>WHOIS WG Wiki: >><https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?whois_policy>https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?whois_policy >

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] [WHOIS-WG] .CAT WHOIS Change Request
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 23, 2012

Jan. 23, 2012

Carleton, is the statement that you are drafting for posting on Jan 27th the ALAC response to the WHOIS RT Report, or a comment on the RSTEP request? Alan At 23/01/2012 10:09 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Dear Colleagues: >Please see the announcement here: > ><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm > > >Apropos, I am developing the Draft for the ALAC response to the >WHOIS RT Report. My draft seeks to layout a framework for the >At-Large principle regarding claims of privacy and our position on >proxy registrations that we should adopt. In general, I do believe >there is convergence between the principle I espouse and extant case. > >In the virtual world defined by the DNS, we accept that each of us >is connected to all of us. And while there is a time-honoured >tradition that parties to a contract may choose the legal >jurisdiction to which they will submit for binding claims and >judgments, we hardly think it useful in such a 'one-to-many' >relationship for a claim of suzerainty of any particular national >law or, set of laws. > >The At-Large is properly mindful of claims to privacy for one or >other purpose and should seek every accommodation for such claims, >so long as these do not degrade the ability of any user to >effectively seek redress of grievance. In my view, the Internet as >'commons' is, of right, good public policy. And as such, anonymity >of the pamphleteer is an enduring objective. This aside, we hold >that redress begins with knowing who is liable and, where to find >them, all relevant protocols observed. > >In this context, we should care less whether privacy rights or >claims are connected to a natural person or a corporation. As odious >to the senses for some as it may be, it is largely settled that >corporations are personified in the law; U.S. jurisprudence of over >100 years seems to have greatly influenced the laws of many nations >in this regard. > >Not sensible to fight that fight all over again. > >To my mind, the defining matter/ issue inre the proxy relationship >is an acceptance of a variant on agency rules. And here I'm relying >on expression of the common law. Plus, seeing as the WHOIS >requirements are enshrined in the RAA, the law of torts. Every proxy >relationship that propose a privacy registration must accept that a) >the proxy provider acts on expressed actual authority of the >registrant b) the proxy provider accepts strict liability for the >registrant on whose behalf it acts. > >The Draft Statement should be available by cob Friday, 27th Jan. > >- Carlton Samuels > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= >_______________________________________________ >WHOIS-WG mailing list >WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > >WHOIS WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?whois_policy

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-en] . Change Request CAT WHOIS
by fatimacambronero＠gmail.com Jan. 23, 2012

Jan. 23, 2012

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re:. Change Request CAT WHOIS From: fatimacambronero(a)gmail.com Carlton Alexander, all Dot The Cat performs asked to modify the Registry Agreement ICANN (requests to vary from 5 Apndice referred to Whois specifications) is based on an informed decision to bring its operation, rules relating to Privacy and Data PROTECTION of the European Union. Dot Cat he consulted both the Authority espaol Data PROTECTION as that of the European Union in this regard. The proposed Modification to estpresentando Dot Cat with respect to Whois data is to differentiate between the publication if it is natural persons on the one hand, and persons or ideal existence jurdicas (Companies, corporations), on the other. With respect to natural persons domain name holders are proposes to have two options: 1.That all data are public, and registration of ESTNA disposicin to searchers. 2. Certain data, minimally, estn published. Regarding jurdicas people can not choose between data Cules publish and which ones not. They have the obligation of all data records are public. In the case that natural persons decide that you only certain data minimally be public, it deberinformar the registrar at the time of registracin make the domain name, and when a user wants see more data on this registrant, you will have a web form available, to obtain these data that are not public, justifying What Are the reasons why they are interested to know. With respect to persons jurdicas, largely passes Latino origin, PROTECTION give your personal data so similar to the protection which will provide the natural persons or natural. He understands that people jurdicas also entitled to this PROTECTION and spread that information errnea, incomplete, inaccurate, outdated, libelous, also affects the good name of this person jurdica, affecting, for example, access to credit, his career, his positioning within the market, and so on. It is also important to remember that many laws of Latin tradition, firms or corporations that are under jurdica certain way (such as commercial companies, annimas partnerships, limited liability companies) have the Debt securities at the time of constitucin, to make PUBLIC the whole process, because in this game ARE interspblico constitucin. So with a consultation in which records are required to register (PUBLIC Registry of Commerce, Directorate of Registration publicly, INSPECTION of People Jurdicas, INSPECTION of Justice, etc..) All information on these people can get easily jurdicas, in many cases is web. So if the data of those people are already PUBLIC jurdicas because aslos other regulations require them referred, does not seem to have little sense to provide a protection of the rules relating travs a refuge with data or privacy. It is also important that we clarify that in the Latin tradition passes, as in the case of Spain, there is one hand, regulations regarding the Privacy (enshrined in substantive or substantive legislacin as National constitutions, codes Civil, etc..), And on the other hand, PROTECTION regulations regarding Personal Data (enshrined in law national or provincial or local), where goods jurdicos protected, are different in both cases: the first is privacy (Jurdicas people have no privacy in the strict sense) and the second case, personal data (which are holders of both the natural persons as jurdicas). The option which aims to provide this Modification Dot Cat estcentrada on natural persons. In order to decide each, their data Cules want to publish and which ones not.On the other hand, the right any user to know that data (it was published) is to safe, because it also gives them the option of requesting, so justified by trmites to the registrar. Next option is to the holder of the domain name to decide whether this user communicates interested or not. I hope this small sum we will be useful to discuss may have implications both for end users of the Internet, and for our Regin, Ascom a history that can sit with such changes within ICANN. Best regards, Fatima PS @ Carlton Felzer birthday! :) On January 23, 2012 13:02, Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan(a)unam.mx> escribitbNL> > Estimado Carlton, colegas, > > mil graciaspor esta aportación que permite iniciar algunas discusiones > decisivas para LACRALO. Haré algunos comentarios con el ánimo de incitar la > participación de los verdaderos expertos: > > 1. sería muy valioso complementar los puntos expresados por Carlton con > puntos de vista basados en la tradición de derecho positivo y las leyes y > prácticas de protección de datos vigentes o en proceso en los países > "latinos" de nuestra comunidad (es decir, no sólo en el "common law"). > > 2. el anonimato y la privacidad de las corporaciones fueron objeto de > discusiones interesantes en la 33a. reunión de autoridades de protección de > datos que tuvo lugar en México a fines de 2011 y en dos conferencias > asociadas, la de The Public Voice y la de la OCDE (esta última en busca de > armonización de marcos normativos). Me parece que a muchos de nosotros nos > resulta natural que las corporaciones no puedan reclamar los mismos > derechos de privacidad y anonimato que los individuos. Sin embargo tengo > una pregunta: ¿qué pasa con las ONGs u OSCs que pueden estar en peligro por > sus posiciones políticas, y que por lo mismo pueden estar poniendo en > peligro a los individuos que las integran? > > 3. me da mucho gusto que la discusión incluya tanto el punto de vista del > individuo u organización social en peligro (lo cual nos lleva a buscar el > máximo de anonimato y privacidad) como el del mismo como víctima de una > mala conducta, que nos lleva a buscar el máximo de identificación de los > responsables de la misma. Ahí está señalado el difícil balance que hay que > alcanzar. > > 4. Sería muy útil que alguien con expertise jurídico nos pudiera ilustrar > sobre los detalles de la solicitud de .cat para volver muy concreta la > posición resultante de las discusiones. Si bien .cat es un registro pequeño > y tiene poca - pero no nula - presencia en América Latina y el Caribe, es > un registro de avanzada, y por otra parte, como todos, cada acción de este > tipo crea un precedente relevante. > > Cordiales saludos. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > *Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ > lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de > carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com [carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com] > Enviado el: lunes, 23 de enero de 2012 09:11 > Hasta: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > CC: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Asunto: [lac-discuss-es] . CAT Solicitud de cambio de base de datos WHOIS > > [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] > > Asunto:. CAT Solicitud de cambio de base de datos WHOIS > A partir de: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > Estimados colegas: > Por favor vea el anuncio aquí: > > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm > > > A propósito, estoy desarrollando el proyecto para la respuesta de ALAC a > la RT WHOIS > Informe. Mi proyecto tiene por objeto el diseño de un marco de referencia > para el principio de At-Large > respecto a las demandas de la privacidad y nuestra posición en los > registros de proxy que nos > deben adoptar. En general, creo que hay una convergencia entre el > principio que defienden y la caja existentes. > > > En el mundo virtual definido por el DNS, se acepta que cada uno de > nosotros es > conectado a todos nosotros. Y si bien hay una larga tradición que > partes de un contrato puede optar por la jurisdicción a la que se > presentar las reclamaciones y las sentencias vinculantes, que no creo que > es útil en tales > un "uno-a-muchos relación a una reclamación de soberanía de un > determinado > nacional o, conjunto de leyes. > > > El At-Large está bien consciente de las reclamaciones a la privacidad de > uno u otro > propósito y debe buscar todos los hoteles de dichas reclamaciones, > siempre y cuando > estos no se degradan con la capacidad de cualquier usuario a buscar > efectivamente la reparación de > queja. En mi opinión, la Internet como "patrimonio común" es, > de derecho público, las buenas > la política. Y como tal, el anonimato de los panfletos es un permanente > objetivo. Aparte de esto, tenemos que la reparación comienza con saber > quién es > responsable y, ¿dónde se encuentran, todos los protocolos relevantes > observados. > > > En este contexto, nos deberÃa importar menos si los derechos de > privacidad o de las reclamaciones se > conectado a una persona fÃsica o una corporaciÃ³n. Como odiosa a los > sentidos de > algunos como puede ser, es en gran medida establecido que las empresas > estÃ¡n personificados > en la ley, la jurisprudencia de EE.UU. de mÃ¡s de 100 aÃ±os parece haber > mucho > influido en la legislaciÃ³n de muchos paÃses en este sentido. > > > No es sensible a la lucha que luchar de nuevo. > > > En mi opiniÃ³n, la definiciÃ³n de la materia / tema INRE la relaciÃ³n > proxy es un > aceptaciÃ³n de una variante de la reglas de la agencia. Y aquÃ estoy > confiando en la expresiÃ³n > de la ley comÃºn. AdemÃ¡s, ya que los requisitos estÃ¡n consagrados en el > WHOIS > la RAA, el Derecho de daÃ±os.Cada relaciÃ³n de proxy que proponer una > privacidad > registro debe aceptar que a) el proveedor de proxy actÃºa sobre expresado > la autoridad real del solicitante b) el proveedor de proxy acepta estricta > responsabilidad para el titular, en cuyo nombre actÃºa. > > > El Proyecto de DeclaraciÃ³n deberÃa estar disponible mazorca Viernes, 27 > de enero > > > - Carlton Samuels > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > MÃ³vil: 876-818-1799 > * Estrategia, PlanificaciÃ³n, Gobierno, EvaluaciÃ³n y plazos de entrega * > ============================= > _______________________________________________ > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/b0e6f82384.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] [lac-discuss-es] . CAT Solicitud de cambio de base de datos WHOIS
by Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Jan. 23, 2012

Jan. 23, 2012

Estimado Carlton, colegas, mil graciaspor esta aportación que permite iniciar algunas discusiones decisivas para LACRALO. Haré algunos comentarios con el ánimo de incitar la participación de los verdaderos expertos: 1. sería muy valioso complementar los puntos expresados por Carlton con puntos de vista basados en la tradición de derecho positivo y las leyes y prácticas de protección de datos vigentes o en proceso en los países "latinos" de nuestra comunidad (es decir, no sólo en el "common law"). 2. el anonimato y la privacidad de las corporaciones fueron objeto de discusiones interesantes en la 33a. reunión de autoridades de protección de datos que tuvo lugar en México a fines de 2011 y en dos conferencias asociadas, la de The Public Voice y la de la OCDE (esta última en busca de armonización de marcos normativos). Me parece que a muchos de nosotros nos resulta natural que las corporaciones no puedan reclamar los mismos derechos de privacidad y anonimato que los individuos. Sin embargo tengo una pregunta: ¿qué pasa con las ONGs u OSCs que pueden estar en peligro por sus posiciones políticas, y que por lo mismo pueden estar poniendo en peligro a los individuos que las integran? 3. me da mucho gusto que la discusión incluya tanto el punto de vista del individuo u organización social en peligro (lo cual nos lleva a buscar el máximo de anonimato y privacidad) como el del mismo como víctima de una mala conducta, que nos lleva a buscar el máximo de identificación de los responsables de la misma. Ahí está señalado el difícil balance que hay que alcanzar. 4. Sería muy útil que alguien con expertise jurídico nos pudiera ilustrar sobre los detalles de la solicitud de .cat para volver muy concreta la posición resultante de las discusiones. Si bien .cat es un registro pequeño y tiene poca - pero no nula - presencia en América Latina y el Caribe, es un registro de avanzada, y por otra parte, como todos, cada acción de este tipo crea un precedente relevante. Cordiales saludos. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 *Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com [carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 23 de enero de 2012 09:11 Hasta: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: [lac-discuss-es] . CAT Solicitud de cambio de base de datos WHOIS [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto:. CAT Solicitud de cambio de base de datos WHOIS A partir de: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Estimados colegas: Por favor vea el anuncio aquí: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm A propósito, estoy desarrollando el proyecto para la respuesta de ALAC a la RT WHOIS Informe. Mi proyecto tiene por objeto el diseño de un marco de referencia para el principio de At-Large respecto a las demandas de la privacidad y nuestra posición en los registros de proxy que nos deben adoptar. En general, creo que hay una convergencia entre el principio que defienden y la caja existentes. En el mundo virtual definido por el DNS, se acepta que cada uno de nosotros es conectado a todos nosotros. Y si bien hay una larga tradición que partes de un contrato puede optar por la jurisdicción a la que se presentar las reclamaciones y las sentencias vinculantes, que no creo que es útil en tales un "uno-a-muchos relación a una reclamación de soberanía de un determinado nacional o, conjunto de leyes. El At-Large está bien consciente de las reclamaciones a la privacidad de uno u otro propósito y debe buscar todos los hoteles de dichas reclamaciones, siempre y cuando estos no se degradan con la capacidad de cualquier usuario a buscar efectivamente la reparación de queja. En mi opinión, la Internet como "patrimonio común" es, de derecho público, las buenas la política. Y como tal, el anonimato de los panfletos es un permanente objetivo. Aparte de esto, tenemos que la reparación comienza con saber quién es responsable y, ¿dónde se encuentran, todos los protocolos relevantes observados. En este contexto, nos deberÃa importar menos si los derechos de privacidad o de las reclamaciones se conectado a una persona fÃsica o una corporaciÃ³n. Como odiosa a los sentidos de algunos como puede ser, es en gran medida establecido que las empresas estÃ¡n personificados en la ley, la jurisprudencia de EE.UU. de mÃ¡s de 100 aÃ±os parece haber mucho influido en la legislaciÃ³n de muchos paÃses en este sentido. No es sensible a la lucha que luchar de nuevo. En mi opiniÃ³n, la definiciÃ³n de la materia / tema INRE la relaciÃ³n proxy es un aceptaciÃ³n de una variante de la reglas de la agencia. Y aquÃ estoy confiando en la expresiÃ³n de la ley comÃºn. AdemÃ¡s, ya que los requisitos estÃ¡n consagrados en el WHOIS la RAA, el Derecho de daÃ±os.Cada relaciÃ³n de proxy que proponer una privacidad registro debe aceptar que a) el proveedor de proxy actÃºa sobre expresado la autoridad real del solicitante b) el proveedor de proxy acepta estricta responsabilidad para el titular, en cuyo nombre actÃºa. El Proyecto de DeclaraciÃ³n deberÃa estar disponible mazorca Viernes, 27 de enero - Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels MÃ³vil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, PlanificaciÃ³n, Gobierno, EvaluaciÃ³n y plazos de entrega * ============================= _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/b2bb871f96.html --]]

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-en] . Change Request CAT WHOIS
by apisan＠unam.mx Jan. 23, 2012

Jan. 23, 2012

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re:. Change Request CAT WHOIS From: apisan(a)unam.mx Dear Carlton, colleagues, thousand graciaspor this aportacin allowing critical to initiate some discussions LACRALO. Haralgunos comments with the minimum of encouraging the participation of the real experts: 1. be very valuable complement the points made by Carlton with views based on the tradition of positive law and the laws and PROTECTION PRACTICE of existing data or process passes "Latinos" of our community (ie, does not only in the "common law"). 2. anonymity and privacy of the corporations were the subject of interesting discussions at the 33rd. PROTECTION authorities reunin of data Mxico held in late 2011 and two conference partner of The Public Voice and the OECD (the last to find frames armonizacin policy). I think many of us find it natural that corporations can not claim the same rights of privacy and anonymity of individuals.However I have a question: qupasa with NGOs or CSOs that may be endangered by their positions POLICIES, and therefore may be putting at risk the individuals within them? 3. I am happy that the discusin includes both the standpoint of the social individual or organization at risk (which leads us to seek the maximum of anonymity and privacy) as the victim of it as a misconduct, which leads us to seek the maximums of identification of those responsible for it. Difcil Ahestsealado the balance to be achieved. 4. It will be very useful for someone with expertise could jurdico we illustrate the details of the request. Cat to become very particular the position resulting from the discussions. While. Cat is a record pequeoy has little - but not zero - Amrican presence in America and the Caribbean, is an advanced registry and on the other hand, as all, each SHARE of this type creates a relevant precedent. Best regards. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr.Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, University Avenue 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Ph. +52- (1) -55-5105-6044, +52- (1) -55-5418-3732 * My blog / My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com * LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty * Join the UNAM group on LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 * Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org Participate in ICANN, http://www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of carlton.samuels @ gmail.com [carlton.samuels @ gmail . com] Posted on: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:11 To: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en]. Change Request CAT WHOIS [[- Translated text (in -> is )--]] Subject:. Change Request CAT WHOIS From: carlton.samuels @ gmail.com Dear Colleagues, Please see the announcement here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm By the way, I am developing the project for ALAC response to the WHOIS RT Report. My project aims to design a framework for the beginning of At-Large regarding claims of privacy, and our position in the proxy records that we be taken. In general, I think there is a convergence between the defending principle and existing housing. In the virtual world defined by the DNS, it is accepted that each of us is connected to all of us. And while there is a long tradition that parties to a contract may elect which jurisdiccina submit claims and judgments binding, do not think it is useful in such a "one-to-many relationship a sovereign CLAIM of a given country or set of laws. The At-Large estbien aware of the privacy claims of either purposes and should seek all hotels of such claim, provided that these do not degrade the ability of any user to effectively seek the repair of complaint. In my view favored, the Internet as "common heritage" is in the right public, the good the policy. As such, the anonymity of the pamphlets is a permanent goal. Apart from this, we must repair begins with knowing the fifth is responsible and NEDA are all relevant protocols observed. In this context, we should care less if the privacy rights or claims connected to an individual or a corporation. As obnoxious to the senses some as can be, is largely established that the companies are personified in the law, U.S. law more than 100 years seem to be much influenced the legislation of many countries in this regard. It is not sensitive to the struggle to fight again. In my opinion, the definition of the subject / topic INRE proxy relationship is a acceptance of a variant of agency rules. And here I am trusting in the expression common law. Furthermore, since the requirements are enshrined in the WHOIS the RAA, the relationship daños.Cada Law to propose a privacy proxy registration must accept that a) the provider of proxy acts on expressed real authority of the applicant b) the proxy provider accepts strict responsibility for the holder, on whose behalf it acts. The Draft Declaration cob should be available Friday, January 27 - Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 * Strategy, Planning, Government, Evaluation and delivery * ============================= _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/a5f1decc2a.html --]]

1 0

.CAT WHOIS Change Request
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 23, 2012

Jan. 23, 2012

Dear Colleagues: Please see the announcement here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm Apropos, I am developing the Draft for the ALAC response to the WHOIS RT Report. My draft seeks to layout a framework for the At-Large principle regarding claims of privacy and our position on proxy registrations that we should adopt. In general, I do believe there is convergence between the principle I espouse and extant case. In the virtual world defined by the DNS, we accept that each of us is connected to all of us. And while there is a time-honoured tradition that parties to a contract may choose the legal jurisdiction to which they will submit for binding claims and judgments, we hardly think it useful in such a 'one-to-many' relationship for a claim of suzerainty of any particular national law or, set of laws. The At-Large is properly mindful of claims to privacy for one or other purpose and should seek every accommodation for such claims, so long as these do not degrade the ability of any user to effectively seek redress of grievance. In my view, the Internet as 'commons' is, of right, good public policy. And as such, anonymity of the pamphleteer is an enduring objective. This aside, we hold that redress begins with knowing who is liable and, where to find them, all relevant protocols observed. In this context, we should care less whether privacy rights or claims are connected to a natural person or a corporation. As odious to the senses for some as it may be, it is largely settled that corporations are personified in the law; U.S. jurisprudence of over 100 years seems to have greatly influenced the laws of many nations in this regard. Not sensible to fight that fight all over again. To my mind, the defining matter/ issue inre the proxy relationship is an acceptance of a variant on agency rules. And here I'm relying on expression of the common law. Plus, seeing as the WHOIS requirements are enshrined in the RAA, the law of torts. Every proxy relationship that propose a privacy registration must accept that a) the proxy provider acts on expressed actual authority of the registrant b) the proxy provider accepts strict liability for the registrant on whose behalf it acts. The Draft Statement should be available by cob Friday, 27th Jan. - Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

=? Iso-8859-1? Q? RES = 3A__LACRALO_Comentarios_de_la? = =? Iso-8859-1? Q? _ = FAltima_llamada_-19 = 2E01 = 2E2012? =
by sylvia＠prontocl.com.br Jan. 22, 2012

Jan. 22, 2012

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: =? Iso-8859-1? Q? RES = 3A__LACRALO_Comentarios_de_la? = =? Iso-8859-1? Q? _ = FAltima_llamada_-19 = 2E01 = 2E2012? = From: sylvia(a)prontocl.com.br Thanks Jospor this summary. As I was out of town, solicitser call on my cell, but obviously have had trouble communicating with me and therefore not I could participate. I hope that on Monday all ALS receive the survey to know the Regin view favored on the showcase. Regards, Sylvia ----- Mensagem original ----- From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [Mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome JostbNL> Francisco Arce Posted in: Saturdays, January 21, 2012 21:27 To: LACRALO Espaol Assunto: [lac-discuss-en] LACRALO Last Call Comments -19.01.2012 * * Dear Members: I heard the entire 19 day teleconference and I wanted to leave some comments: 1 .- Call: I see the disadvantages persist technicians on calls. So I ask the staff is so kind as to confirm, if the Call different problems are always the same, and if as that solution can be given. The last 4 or 5 calls was very difcil to have a good COMMUNICATION, YMS even taking into account the translations. 2 .- Showcase: No it is obligatory to make the Showcase, I think that was said in the call and want to make clear that it is not. The region decided that activity does or does not do. Now, as I said in previous calls in the previous mail WE ASK THE ALSes want to do. Do not make decisions unilateral, and that we do from da Monday. Thanks Sergio and Fátima for remarkable, that was the purpose of my words. In my previous mail and read the majority, and to ask the ALSes that get together and go aportndolo material. Having the material is beneficial, although not made the Showcase, for the purpose of having a file with the history of ALSes for future events. 3 .- Comitde Finance: Dev agree with Natalia and I think the closing date should be Friday January 27. Because after that date will be viable LACRALO for the organization including for the organization's Staff ICANN that their agenda is complicated. 4. Proposal for Fiscal year 2013. Workshop in August. I think that while is plan B, can be used for the implemen other events, if do in Costa Rica as virtual meetings as requested by such AFRALO. 5 .- 3 ALSes who applied to join the Regina: One of Uruguay, one of Brazil and one from Ecuador: We will be doing the proper reports and queries you all if you have something to say about them. Regards Jose Arce .- _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2308c0dc09.html --]]

1 0

=? Iso-8859-1? Q? LACRALO_Comentarios_de_la_ = FAltim? = =? Iso-8859-1? Q? A_llamada_-19 = 2E01 = 2E2012? =
by josefranciscoarce＠gmail.com Jan. 21, 2012

Jan. 21, 2012

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: =? Iso-8859-1? Q? LACRALO_Comentarios_de_la_ = FAltim? = =? Iso-8859-1? Q? A_llamada_-19 = 2E01 = 2E2012? = From: josefranciscoarce(a)gmail.com * * Dear Members: I heard the entire 19 day teleconference and I wanted to leave some comments: 1 .- Call: I see the disadvantages persist technicians on calls. So I ask the staff is so kind as to confirm, if the Call different problems are always the same, and if as that solution can be given. The last 4 or 5 calls was very difcil COMMUNICATION to have a good, even considering YMS the translations. 2 .- Showcase: No it is obligatory to make the Showcase, I think that was said in the call and want to make clear that it is not. The region decided that activity does or does not do. Now, as I said in previous calls in the previous mail WE ASK THE ALSes want to do. Do not make decisions unilateral, and that we do from da Monday.Thanks Sergio and Fátima for remarkable, that was the purpose of my words. In my previous mail and read the majority, and to ask the ALSes that get together and go aportndolo material. Having the material is beneficial, although not made the Showcase, for the purpose of having a file with the history of ALSes for future events. 3 .- Comitde Finance: Dev agree with Natalia and I think the closing date should be Friday January 27. Because after that date will be LACRALO viable for the organization for the organization including the ICANN staff that their agenda is complicated. 4. Proposal for Fiscal year 2013. Workshop in August. I think that while is plan B, can be used for the implemen other events, if do in Costa Rica as virtual meetings as requested by AFRALO example. 5 .- 3 ALSes who applied to join the Regina: One of Uruguay, one of Brazil and one from Ecuador: We will be doing the proper reporting and consulted with you all if you have something to say about them. Regards Jose Arce .- _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8f1e532c3f.html --]]

1 0

REMINDER: Meeting invitation / LACRALO conference call on Thursday 19 January 2012 at 21:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 20, 2012

Jan. 20, 2012

Dear All, The next LACRALO teleconference is scheduled for Thursday 19 January 2012 at 21:00 UTC. You may check your local time at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=LACRALO+Montlhy+Te leconference+January+2012&iso=20120119T21 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/3o3bAQ Please note the new Adobe Connect room to be used from this meeting onwards: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/lacralo If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Gisella Gruber, Matt Ashtiani, Nathalie Peregrine, ICANN At-Large Staff E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

1 1