+1
Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh/Cambodia
On 01/22/2012 02:24 AM, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
> On this point, there are a couple of US cases that are relevant.
>
> In NAACP v. Alabama (1958) the US Supreme Court held that
> the state of Alabama could not force the disclosure of the NAACP
> membership lists. The Court said that the right to freedom of
> association would be limited if the names of members of
> unpopular organizations could be obtained by the government.
>
> This is a very influential opinion that also contributed to later
> decisions protecting anonymous speech as a part of freedom
> of expression.
>
> More recently, the US Supreme Court held in an open
> government case that AT&T could not claim a right of
> "personal privacy." Corporations, though they may be
> "legal persons" do not have a right "personal privacy."
>
> Obviously, we believe there should be strong privacy
> safeguards for individuals as opposed to corporations.
> But It may be worth considering, in the context of ICANN
> and WHOIS, whether political associations are entitled
> to some privacy rights, given the close relationship to the
> exercise of political freedom.
>
> This would seem to be a reasonable position for the NCSG
> to put forward.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Marc Rotenberg.
>
> PS Press associations also, in some contexts, are entitled
> to greater privacy rights.
>
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
>> All,
>> I think this is a very dangerous slippery slope. Natural persons deserve privacy, yes, and that completely consistent with the EU Data Protection Directive. But in the US and other places around the world Organizations deserve privacy protection too. If we give this up now, we will never get it back.
>>
>> I strongly agree with Avri that the organizations that protect natural persons are important, and so too are the organizations that deal with political freedoms, religious freedoms, political minorities, religious minorities, and even organizations who are parents organizing baseball teams, soccer teams and home-schooling groups. Organizations are the **perfect example** of what a Noncommercial Message does **not need to be tied into An Physical Address in a Globally Available Database.**
>>
>> What law enforcement really cares about is using the Whois to track down those who do e-commerce deals and then cheat someone. That's fair, and I and others are working on ways to help them with very narrowly-tailored policies. But that does not mean that we give up the Privacy of those engaged in Noncommercial Conduct or simply ordinary conduct (and in the US, that includes Organizations engaged in an array of protected speech -- note: we had a case where law enforcement wanted all the members of an NAACP branch, "a civil rights organization for ethnic minorities in the united States," and the answer was "no" on privacy grounds - organizations have rights of privacy and speakers of all types, including those banded together in organizations have privacy in their contentious, minority speech.)
>>
>> Please know: that there is an ongoing move in the gTLDs to eliminate proxy and privacy services, and if they prevail (now or 10 years from now), we will be left with only the slim protections, if any, in the ICANN Whois database. So yes, if .CAT (Catalonia, Spain) wants privacy for its individuals, that's great. But it sets a precedent for all gTLDs, and in that precedent, we need all Organizations not actively engaged in e-commerce protected too.
>>
>> Big sigh, as that is a lot to talk about. I have lived Whois policies for the last year as Vice-Chair of the Whois Review Team, and for 10 years before that as one of the diligent NCUC reps on Whois Task Forces (including Milton, Wendy, Robin).
>>
>> As a policy matter, I would ask that our NCUC leaders strongly urge .CAT to modify its proposal to offer privacy protection for all noncommercial organizations that request it, too, as a condition of our support.
>>
>> Best, Kathy (Kleiman)
>> Co-Founder, NCUC
>> Vice-Chair, Whois Review Team
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I agree, but I wonder whether it is worth suggesting something that goes one step further, the protection of some legal persons (mostly NGO and other civil society orgs) whose day to day operations are concerned with protecting natural persons facing a variety of physical threats.
>>>
>>> So, I suggest we support, but say it does not go far enough.
>>>
>>> (have not read it yet, going on your abstract - if they do have such an exception - i support it all the way)
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 21 Jan 2012, at 11:50, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>>>
>>>> .CAT proposes to revise its Registry agreement to support withholding of
>>>> some WHOIS data by individuals who opt out. It will not offer this
>>>> opt-out to legal persons.
>>>>
>>>> I propose that NCSG support this amendment, with a simple: "NCSG
>>>> supports the availability of WHOIS privacy options for natural persons.
>>>> Accordingly, we support puntCAT's proposed amendment."
>>>>
>>>> --Wendy
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [council] .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public comments
>>>> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:08:05 -0800
>>>> From: Glen de Saint Géry<[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm
>>>> .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes
>>>>
>>>> Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 20 January2012
>>>>
>>>> Categories/Tags: Contracted Party Agreements
>>>>
>>>> Purpose (Brief):
>>>>
>>>> ICANN is opening today the public comment period for the Fundacio
>>>> puntCAT's, request to change its Whois according to EU data protection
>>>> legislation. The public comment period will be closed on 3 March 2012.
>>>>
>>>> The .cat registry, submitted a Registry Service Evaluation Process
>>>> (RSEP) on August 2011.
>>>>
>>>> At this time, ICANN has conducted a preliminary review in accordance
>>>> with the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and process set forth at
>>>> http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html. ICANN's preliminary
>>>> review (based on the information provided) did not identify any
>>>> significant competition, security, or stability issues.
>>>>
>>>> The implementation of the request requires an amendment to the .cat
>>>> Registry Agreement signed 23 September 2005. This public forum requests
>>>> comments regarding the proposed amendment.
>>>> Public Comment Box Link:
>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/cat-whois-changes-18jan12-en.htm
>>>>
>>>> Glen de Saint Géry
>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>>
>>
>> --
--
In April 2011, I started a new blog:
...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/
continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.
This is my latest posting:
On Law Enforcement (8 January 2012)
http://www.thinking21.org/?p=682
Norbert Klein
[log in to unmask]
Phnom Penh / Cambodia
|
