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