Important Information Links
5 December 2011
18 March 2012
WHOIS Policy Review Team
<ac:structured-macro ac:name="unmigrated-wiki-markup" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="698b4554-3996-44b2-9017-2eb3aaf4bb9c"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[
The WHOIS Policy Review Team, constituted under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments with the U.S. Department of Commerce, publishes its [Draft Report and Recommendationshttp://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-en.pdf] [PDF, 1.04 KB] for public comment.
Draft report for public comment
Final Report and Recommendations to be published by 30 April 2012.
This Draft of the ALAC Statement on the WHOIS RT Report was prepared by Carlton Samuels.
It cannot be right for a national law or set of national laws to be deemed as superseding all other considerations. And while there is a time-honoured tradition that parties to a contract may choose the legal jurisdiction to which they will submit for binding claims and judgments, we hardly think it useful in this 'one-to-many' relationship of common-pool resources for a claim of suzerainty of any particular national law or, set of laws. It is not unknown for members of a community to cede certain rights to be a part of a community. The Internet remaining as a global commons is worthy. And so we believe in extant case that it is not only politic but right for members of this global community to devise binding WHOIS rules and expect due respect for them from external parties, including governments.
The At-Large is properly mindful of claims to privacy for one or other purpose and willingly accede accommodation for such claims, so long as these do not degrade the ability of any user to effectively seek redress of grievance. Truth be Truth be known, what we have are persons, both natural and legal and for whatever reason, wishing to be on the commons but not of the commons. First First, we cannot concede that commercial entities should prevail on any claim of a right to privacy. But we would wish to err on the side of caution and acknowledge that for perfectly reasonable political purposes, anonymity is sometimes good and necessary; we concede common cause and vouchsafe the anonymity of the \ [political\] pamphleteer. This aside, we hold that redress begins with knowing who is liable and, where to find them, all relevant protocols observed. Wiki Markup
In this context, we should care less whether privacy rights or claims are connected to a natural person or a corporation. In our view, the defining matter/ issue inre the proxy relationship is an acceptance and adoption of certain rules. The ALAC accepts the RAA as fit and proper for enshrining WHOIS requirements. The ALAC further recommends that WHOIS proxies be regularized and privacy registrations accommodated so long as: a) the proxy provider acts on the expressed actual authority of the registrant b) the proxy provider accepts strict liability for the registrant on whose behalf it acts.