To:
Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@sidn.nl>
cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:52:28 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Mon, 03 Mar 2003 19:30:08 +0100." <200303031830.h23IU8ue035383@bartok.sidn.nl>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry
> I don't recall the question, at least I don't recognize it. The > basic answer is no. There is no requirement for EU residency for > registars nor registrants. All contracts are under dutch law. To > force this, there should be a dutch adress to which papers can be > presented. But that has nothing to do with privacy apart from the > fact that the dutch privacy law should be followed by .nl. See "Deelnemers categorie I", below. ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: brunner@nic-naa.net Delivery-Date: Tue Jan 21 19:48:52 2003 Return-Path: <brunner@nic-naa.net> Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0M0mp7k038586; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:48:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200301220048.h0M0mp7k038586@nic-naa.net> To: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net> cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, brunner Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] where are we with privacy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:36:52 EST." <a05111b02ba53173826c6@[192.149.252.226]> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:48:51 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> > I would also like others to comment on Jaap's message and assessment that: OK, part 2. > At 13:43 +0100 1/10/03, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: > ... > >So yes, the non-disclose attribute will work for us without any > >problem. It is possible that we might do extensions to aid with the > ... > > > > jaap \begin{quote} Deelnemers ... Deelnemer worden ... Deelnemers categorie I Voor het deelnemerschap categorie I komen in aanmerking bedrijven in instellingen die zijn gevestigd op het grondgebied van de Euorpese Unie. [Category I participation Category I participation is open to businesses and institutions based within the European Union.] ... Het deelnemerschap geeft recht tot: o het verzorgen van de registratie van domeinnamen ten behoeve van klanten; [Category I participants have the following rights: o To apply to register domain names on behalf of clients;] \end{quote} The "us" (parties having the capacity to register domain names on behalf of clients) for which "the non-disclose attribute will work" appears to be a scoped set of (eventual) EPP participants. The charter for this WG is not to create a registry-specific, or regime-specific, or jurisdiction- specific, or object-specific protocol. How can a registrar signal in-band to a registry that it accepts the general Data Protection framework, and any specific terms and conditions? More generally, how can any two (or more) participants in the onward-transport of customer data signal in-band their data collection practices, and automate the management of onward-transport? Eric ------- End of Forwarded Message