[ALAC] Final ALAC Statement on Preliminary Issue Report on ‘Thick’ Whois

[Patrick Vande Walle]

On 24/12/2011, at 4:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is a grey area.   Some institutions, e.g shelters for abused women's and children's, may need the same privacy protection as individuals.  The same could be said for advocacy groups in countries that don't accept a notion of advocacy.
>>
>> avri

This is indeed a grey area. Who is going to decide which organizations
or groups should benefit from privacy and which should not ?
Personally, I would stick to protecting individuals' privacy. 

Anyway, as others have pointed out, the issue is with display, not
collection.  Whether the WHOIS is thick or thin is mostly irrelevant
when it comes to protecting the privacy of individuals.

Patrick Vande Walle

>>
>> On 23 Dec 2011, at 22:57, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>
>>> No concerns, I fully support this as-is. Thanks, Alan.
>>>
>>> Is it worth referring to "privacy" concerns as being that of "personal
>>> privacy"? I haven't heard anyone, even the privacy advocates amongst us,
>>> suggesting that corporate bodies -- especially for-profit and governmental
>>> -- be allowed to hide themselves using a thick (or even thin) WHOIS.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Evan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 December 2011 20:18, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The revised version of the statement based on comment submitted has
>>>> been posted at
>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624.
>>>>
>>>> Aside from stylistic changes, the only two substantive changes were:
>>>>
>>>> - In sub-item 1, the intent of the statement needed to be clarified
>>>> as suggested by Eduardo.
>>>> - Sub-item 3 was added based on a comment I made early in the process
>>>> with no one disputing it.
>>>>
>>>> Of the other suggestions, they generally were:
>>>>
>>>> - counter to community input in the earlier round of e-mail comments;
>>>> - supported but did not change what was already in the draft statement; or
>>>> - were issues related to the substantive discussion of whether the
>>>> change from thin to thick should be made, the subject of the PDP if
>>>> one should be started, but was not required in this vetting of the
>>>> Preliminary Issue Report.
>>>>
>>>> If you have any concerns with this final statement, please contact me.
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>