[At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
evan at telly.org
Tue May 15 12:10:49 UTC 2012
On 15 May 2012 00:38, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick at vande-walle.eu> wrote:
> Historically, going back to the interim ALAC, this group had a strong
> pro-privacy stance.
Oh, you mean the all-appointed, no-ALS-or-RALO ALAC? That's telling.
> I noticed over the last 2 or 3 years that the statements evolved in the
> opposite direction, possibly under the influence of some who have a
> business interest in an open-to-anyone WHOIS.
Please offer evidence of ANY such business interests within At-Large and
especially ALAC. Such baseless, gossip-level accusations are demeaning to
the debate. Indeed I would suggest the opposite, that it is the influx of
non-insider involvement in ALAC, thanks to the ALS-RALO structure, that has
led to the shift in position. It is my perspective that the most assertive
proponents for WHOIS accountability within At-Large are amongst its least
Historically, the ALAC cared for all individuals, even those registering
> domain names. Now, the latter are told to move on to NCUC.
To use the same terminology, there is nobody "caring" for the interests of
non-registrant end users except At-Large; registrants have other,
more-direct channels into ICANN policy development. And it has only been
recently that anyone here has acknowledged the reality that registrants and
end users have different, sometimes competing interests. WHOIS accuracy and
reliability is one of those realms in which the interests diverge
In fact, look close enough and you'd find some movement in this final
> report to the ALAC's pronounced view.
> Indeed. At long last, the need for some privacy system is acknowledged,
> even going as suggesting to regulate privacy providers.
Exactly. ALAC has never been anti-privacy. But privacy and anonymity are
not synonymous, and the provision of privacy is not properly delivered by
obfuscating WHOIS information.
Em: evan at telly dot org
More information about the At-Large