[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board

Mon Apr 7 15:17:39 EDT 2008

Chris and all,

  This might work, but seems to me would require that
each registrant, and the registerant only have access to
their registration and Whois data for their Domain Names.
I proposed this idea back in 2002, and it wasn't well
recieved by the registry constituency, the BC, nor
the IPC, and hence was rejected accordingly...

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Blogs.pn" <namecritic at blogs.pn>
>Sent: Apr 7, 2008 9:45 AM
>To: derek at aa419.org, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
>Cc: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft	Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
>
>I say leave privacy as an option for each individual user and enforce the 
>accuracy of the information either way.
>
>Chris McElroy
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Derek Smythe" <derek at aa419.org>
>To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy at seltzer.com>
>Cc: <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 6:29 PM
>Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft 
>Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
>
>
>>   Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>>
>>> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to
>>> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.
>> ...
>> ...
>>>
>>>     * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very
>>> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs
>>> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as
>>> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to
>>> make a big problem worse – and the existing reporting system is already
>>> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with
>>> respect to WHOIS – fixing this should be a headline compliance activity
>>> in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our
>>> comments here to compliance activities related to the operational
>>> planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns
>>> related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements
>>> on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.
>>>
>> Wendy
>>
>> I respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in
>> enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective .
>>
>> I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is
>> submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused
>> to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by
>> design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3
>> April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm ,
>> which is sadly hardly ever enforced.
>>
>> I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are
>> being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent domain's existence
>> endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy protection we
>> find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS privacy is a
>> very sharp two sided sword.
>>
>> As an example of why we need whois details currently: Right now a big
>> corporate is giving away free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a
>> disproportionate large number of registrants from small towns across
>> America shown in domains spoofing banks, government agencies and other
>> businesses. We contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn had
>> no knowledge of these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents
>> etc. We have contacted the big corporate and registrar in an attempt
>> to address this issue. The domains are "disabled" in the corporate's
>> system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly visible in WHOIS
>> without the victims' permission. Without verifiable whois this problem
>> would have been denied (as was originally attempted) and the problem
>> invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking far in excess
>> of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip of the
>> iceberg ...
>>
>> To really represent end users, current issues and procedures should be
>> fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised and we would all
>> be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact that much more
>> money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being
>> visible.
>>
>> Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the price
>> of partially disarming those currently doing what they do to make the
>> Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to,
>> though they would have the same problem.
>>
>> Personally I have numerous domains with whois protection, but my whois
>> details are 100% correct for those domains and I am using an available
>> acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them.
>> These mechanisms are available to other users as well, if privacy is a
>> concern to them - with the exception of the initially much abused .us
>> TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us domain. We do have choices.
>>
>> In a nutshell, there is also a reason why whois is sometimes not
>> accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility illegal activities.
>> How do you protect against that?
>>
>> To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each action.
>> Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would wish.
>> Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Derek Smythe
>> http://www.aa419.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://atlarge.icann.org 
>
>
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827