Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:19:16 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
It is late in the time left for revising this document so I will just
offer three short comments without going in and attempting to wordsmith
inside the document. Food for though!
#1: Page 1: As part of the opening logic to the submission the text as
written is:
/In the matter of protection of personal and confidential information,
which is a very newsworthy issue in the 21st century, privacy practices
are a matter of consumer trust, and therefore high risk for those
operating an Internet business. Even if customers have obediently
complied with demands for excessive collection and disclosure of
personal information up to this point, in the current news furor over
Snowden and the cooperation of business with national governments
engaged in surveillance, this could change with the next news story.
The Internet facilitates successful privacy campaigns./
I would suggest that the submission focus in immediately on ICANN
practice and evolving policy on the protection of personal and
confidential information, and not so much Snowden and news stories.
[Possible revision]
/In the matter of protection of personal and confidential information on
the Internet social norms and public policy are evolving and ICANN
should be in the forefront of helping define workable practice, as well
as bringing its contract language in line with public policy. It is bad
ICANN business practice to put registrars at odds with national privacy
policy. It also jeopardizes registrars' consumer trust and puts at risk
the business of those operating an Internet business. /
#2: [Comment] There is a saying about the Catholic Church, to the effect
that dealing with social norms it always arrives a little late and out
of breath. ICANN is acting in a similar way. ICANN could both handle
this in contract language, and help evolve best and workable practices
around the protection of personal and confidential information by (a)
contract language that is consistent with national policy, and (b)
showing some leadership in what would be good and workable policy here.
ICANN is neither a King nor a Church bestowing favors on registries and
registrars. It is a business entering into contractual obligations with
its direct customers.
#3: [*Typo*] I don't know if the typo is in the Blacknight quote or not,
but 5.3 should read ...., then [not than] ALL registrars based in
Germany..."
5.3 Response. The European Commission in its comments wrote, and we
strongly agree: "the same exception should apply to others in the same
jurisdiction who can demonstrate that they are in the same situation."
Further, Blacknight wrote and we support: "if ANY registrar in Germany,
for example, is granted a waiver based on German law, *then* ALL
registrars based in Germany should receive the same treatment." Once a
national data protection or privacy law is interpreted as requiring and
exemption or modification, it should be available to all
Registries/Registrars in that country.
Sam L.
|
|
|