[At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG

Mon Jul 16 00:38:21 EDT 2007

Yes, I thought I had signed up for the WG, but this is the first I've heard
of anything regarding progress.

However, since I just opened the doc and it's 23 pages, it'll have to wait
until I get some time.

But, I do have some input:

1) First and foremost, I'm getting irritated at everyone using phishing as
the antagonist to every situation.  I've heard it used incorrectly for
domain tasting and I've heard it used incorrectly for the reason for full
disclosure in whois.  I'd like to think we've all got more intellect than to
keep pulling this subject out of thin air.

2) I don't believe that 'law enforcement' should have complete and unlimited
access at all times to whois if there is a privacy provision.  If there is a
privacy provision invoked, then they should have to go through appropriate
channels to gain this information.  Point of reason from an American
perspective: law enforcement used to have to practice due diligence in
acting on search warrants prior to the nazi takeover.  Now that level of due
diligence has been reduced to the level of ordering a pizza it has caused
more problems than it has solved and contributed to the erosion of American
ideals while doing little for 'real' law enforcement.  Imagine this lack of
due diligence on a global scale.  oh, please just wait to see what trouble
this can cause.

sidenote: the criminals aren't always on the inside of the jailcell.

3) Regarding #2, I think there should be a privacy provision of some type.
The whois is similar to a phonebook, and if someone wants their info
unlisted I think we should afford that option.  Not just a facade option
that exists today, but a real option.

4) For situations that require technical need for use of whois, the data
should be available and unmasked.  Namely, for technical and financial
purposes, that data should be available to the designated parties but not
available to others not having the need to know.  In my opinion, the issue
is what data should go where and available to whom.

5) The current format of whois policies are outdated and should be
thoroughly revised.

6) There seems to be a complete lack of responsibility on part of service
providers (registrars, et  al) in keeping their fiduciary responsibility of
whois data.  Or, for that matter any records that could be reasonably
queried without a court order.

7) I don't think the whois should be a 'public' database.

8)  As usual, I don't think the policy development of such issues should be
rushed along or done haphazardly.  Rather, it should be done with
thoughtfulness and concern.

Randy Glass
A at L

On 7/10/07, Michael Maranda <mmaranda at afcn.org> wrote:
>
> Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting?  I had no knowledge
> as to whether persons not on the committee could join the call, and only
> learned that possibility after call had commenced.
>
> On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg at web.de> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Wendy,
> >
> > thank you for the update.
> > I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the
> > Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much
> > welcome your advice.
> >
> > Best
> > Annette
> >
> >
> > Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
> > > The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to
> > > this list message:
> > > < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html>
> > >
> > > Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being
> > > discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it
> > > impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or
> > > accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the
> > registrant.  The
> > > intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent
> > > adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep
> > the
> > > contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement
> > > and individuals to adopt.
> > >
> > > As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call,
> > > <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html>  it would
> > be
> > > helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would
> > > also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
> > >
> > >
> > > The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information
> > along
> > > to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her
> >
> > > direct contact information in public WHOIS.  Somewhere along the way,
> > > the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information
> > > when a query is made but not responded to.  This too seems like an
> > > overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal
> > > reason for the registrant's information to be revealed.  As an
> > > individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process
> > of
> > > law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals
> > > choose to protect.  I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that
> > > view.
> > >
> > > I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in
> > discussing
> > > any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if
> > you're
> > > not participating directly in the WG.
> > >
> > > --Wendy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
> Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
> Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
> President, Association For Community Networking
>
> Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance:
> http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>

-- 
-------------------------
AmericaAtLarge.org
RJPacific.com
DDMF.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070715/2f438c95/attachment.html 