1. Protection of the registrant's personally identifiable information to the maximum extent possible and consistent with other legitimate needs for information;
There are no "other legitimate needs". There are lobbies within ICANN. Outside of ICANN, in the pre-ICANN and the operational net community, two of those lobbies, "intellectual property" and "law enforcement" are broadly considered illegitimate. See Leslie Daigle's rework of rfc954 that just ended IETF-wide LC on 6/30 on the first of those two lobbies. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daigle-rfc954bis-01.txt You can also find a discussion here: ftp://nic-naa.net/pub/draft-brunner-rfc954-obsolete-00.txt originally published here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brunner-rfc954-historic-00.txt See the IAB's summary of the consensus of the RAVEN list on the second of those two lobbies. While that statement is specific to intercept, and policy neutral, the requirement for a pervasive access mechanism to some network critical database(s) with access and management plane issues so similar to the MEGACO problem, the technical consensus seems to me to be predictable. When "warrentless" and "free speech" are added in at least one jurisdiction, the policy complications are evident. See: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2804.txt?number=2804 Welcome to the War of the Lobbies. Eric