<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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!<br>
<br>
#1: Page 1: As part of the opening logic to the submission the text
as written is:<br>
<br>
<i>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><br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
[Possible revision]<br>
<br>
<i>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. </i><br>
<br>
#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. <br>
<br>
#3: [<b>Typo</b>] 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…”<br>
<br>
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, <b>then</b> 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.<br>
<br>
Sam L.<br>
</body>
</html>