+1 On Feb 2, 2011, at 12:10 AM, Nettlefold, Peter wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to the sub-group for their excellent work on this.
My comment on this is that we could consider, particularly at this stage of the review, keeping our definitions or understandings of terms as broad as possible. This is partly because I think that it may be better to have some overlap in our definitions by keeping them broad, rather than risk missing something by having them too narrow.
In the case of ‘applicable laws’, my suggestion is to keep our definition open so that it can potentially include any relevant/applicable laws. Privacy laws will obviously be a key part of this, but there may be other laws that we haven’t yet identified.
As we discussed in London, I think this issue is common to each of our definitional questions. For example, privacy issues should also be raised in the ‘consumer trust’ area, and I’ve put forward some comments to that sub-group to that effect.
Unfortunately I won’t be on the call tonight, but I’m happy to discuss any of this.
Regards,
Peter
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2011 9:25 AM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Cc: Yakushev@dstadvisors.ru Subject: [Rt4-whois] Sub-group on applicable law
Dear All,
Our sub-group suggests that our definition for the term "applicable law" should be:
An agreed understanding for the purpose of WHOIS review: national laws related to personal data protection and data privacy, implementing internationally recognized legal norms such as the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N.Guidelines<http://U.N.Guidelines> for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files. <mg_info.txt><ATT00001..txt>