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

[JJS]

*I strongly share Patrick's concerns, and for the same reasons would place
human rights and civil liberties above all else.

In some parts of the world (one large Asian country, one large country in
North America, etc.) these rights and liberties are put in jeopardy in the
name of "decency" (some conveniently find the word "democracy" to be
indecent) or "the fight against terrorism"): this is a regression in human
development.
Regards,
Jean-Jacques.
*
2011/12/28 Patrick Vande Walle <patrick at vande-walle.eu>

> 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
> >>>>
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29>
>