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@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@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