Re: Re[2]: [ga-sys] The EU Privacy issue

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
Cc: <ga-sys@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:05 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga-sys] The EU Privacy issue


> Hello Joanna,
>
> Thursday, May 24, 2001, 7:46:46 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > It doesn't require the businesses to do business with those that
> >> choose to opt-out, so the opt-out can be in the form of "If you want
> >> to register a domain name, you agree to these terms.  If you do not
> >> agree to these terms, you may opt-out by not registering a domain
> >> name."
>
> > Rubbish. Offering a choice means just that. That does not mean to say
that
> > options have to be offered at the same price. Opt-in could be encouraged
by
> > discounts.
>
> No, offering a choice doesn't mandate that they do business with those
> that opt-out, and there is NOTHING in these rules that state that it
> is a violation to refuse to do business with those who will not
> opt-in.
>
> >>
> >> A domain name is not a right.
>
> > Actually, that is debateable. I may have an internationally recognized
> > Trademark and wish to dispute third party bad faith registration of the
> > TM.com. You are suggesting that UDRP would award the DN to the third
party
> > on the basis that I am unwilling to disclose personal data, which it is
my
> > legal right to do. This is silly.
>
> You have a case in court for stopping someone from utilizing your
> trademark unlawfully.  But that doesn't mean you have a right to the
> domain name itself.  NO law gives you a right to the domain name,
> merely to protection to prevent others from using your trademark in an
> infringing manner.
>

Then why does the UDRP award the domain name to the Complainant? The cases
don't end with You can't use this domain name anymore. They end with the
transfer of the domain name to the TM Holder. Where ya been Will?


>
> > It took 2 years of negotiations between the EU and Microsoft etc. to
arrive
> > at a mutually acceptible agreement. The DNSO has only just started and
has
> > yet to determine what are the specific purposes for which this
information
> > is required in the public domain. (see postings on WHOIS Conditions of
use).
>
> MS's conditions are vastly different. The DNSO does not have to
> negotiate with the EU.  The DNSO does not exist legally, and does not
> enter into any contracts as far as that goes.

So the DNSO is illegal? Where do you get this wonderful information you post
as fact?

>
> > Even if the Registries-Registrars can satisfy requirements for a
particular
> > purpose to collect and disseminate the data, whether or not this is to
be
> > accessible to millions of people in the public domain for "any lawful
> > purpose" through WHOIS is an entirely seperate consideration. So far as
the
> > EU is concerned, "any lawful purpose" does not protect their citizens
rights
> > of freedom to which they are entitled under the law.
>
> That freedom includes not registering domain names if they can't
> accept the disclosures.

Those that give up their freedom willingly don't deserve it. In the US I do
have Free Enterprise to fall back on. I am supposed to be free to start my
own business. If I choose to make that a web business then it is a RIGHT
william. Certain restrictions apply to all businesses, but when I begin a
bricks and mortar business I do not have to agree to some lopsided
arbitration process in order to file a DBA. (Doing Business AS). A Domain
Name IMHO is closer to a DBA than anything else. The extra restrictions for
an online DBA as it were are extraordinary and unacceptable IMO.

>
> > Nothing I've read precludes the above situation from being
> >> the way domain registrars handle this issue.
>
> > You are correct, but as a small private corporation, you have more
> > flexibility and power to engage in discriminatory practices. ICANN seeks
to
> > be representative of international interests and cannot afford such
> > luxuries.
>
> ICANN doesn't have to do anything.  This does not effect ICANN in any
> way.  The registrars WHO RESIDE OR HAVE A PRESENCE IN THE EU, need to
> find out how to comply with the rule.

Why should they? ICANN is NOT an absolute authority. Your constant reference
to them as such is false. ICANN claims authority. That doesn't automatically
give it to them. The European Countries have much more authority than ICANN.
ICANN is a pipsqueak compared to governments who can pass laws to do
anything they like. Then ICANN has to alter it's rules to comply with them.
Not the reverse William. The countries have more power. Why do you see ICANN
as some supreme authority?

>
> This rule does not effect US Based registrars who do not have an EU
> presence.  Microsoft has an EU presence.
>
> Microsoft also receives data from EU companies about EU Residents.
>
> That kind of situation does not exist with domain names.
>
> The Tucows agreement would bring the bulk access whois agreement into
> compliance with the EU rules, thus eliminating that issue as well.
>
> >> Registrars who refuse to....well they can also be registrars for their
> >> local ccTLDs.
> >>
> > Tell that to Register.com
>
> Register.com has bigger worries, Joanna.  They are fighting for their
> very life right now.

Don't be fooled. So is ICANN.

Chris McElroy AKA NameCritic

>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-sys@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-sys" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-sys@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-sys" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html