[At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue May 15 15:07:49 UTC 2012
Your intervention is curiously confusing since it begins by alleging a
position to this ALAC that you later on appear to junk.
In the last little while, I have 'held the pen' more often than not on ALAC
WHOIS Statements. I believe the statements I have crafted faithfully
reflect the consensus opinion of the At-Large. Furthermore, if you examine
them closely, you will see a concession to privacy interests and our
consistent recommendation for a policy position that acknowledge these.
We agree to disagree respecting your view on privacy vis-a-vis WHOIS. Your
position condemns ordinary users who are hurt by bad actors to do without
the basic information to initiate redress of grievance. Undoubtedly WHOIS
information to a class of better informed interlocutors could likely be
fruitful. But information discrimination of the kind suggested against
victims of dissolute behaviours adds insult to injury. Count me out.
All aside, I am curious as to the identity of the individual allegedly of
outsize influence "who have a business interest in an open-to-anyone
WHOIS". If you should be taken seriously, this person is fingered as
responsible for this reversal of fortune to your position.
Clarity is an absolute requirement here. Or you might otherwise be fairly
accused of a blood libel. And a demand for redress of grievance.
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <
patrick at vande-walle.eu> wrote:
> On 14/05/12 21:44, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> Any other position would be both ahistorical and worse, demonstrate a
> touch of schizophrenia. A review of previous ALAC statements pertaining and
> our intervention on the RT initiative in particular should suffice.
> Historically, going back to the interim ALAC, this group had a strong
> pro-privacy stance. 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.
> Historically, the ALAC cared for all individuals, even those registering
> domain names. Now, the latter are told to move on to NCUC.
> 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. Now, I actually
> wish I can live long enough to see this implemented some way or another.
> We had more than 10 years to do that, and we didn't. There is no sign this
> is going to happen any time soon.
> Speaking of regulating privacy providers, I do not understand why the
> review team did not suggest to allow registrars only to provide these
> privacy services as an integral part of their registration service. One
> would just need to update the RAA. Many registrars already provide this
> service. Others could join in. There would be no need to regulate yet
> another bunch of new players. If the registrars are serious in their
> privacy services, there might even be no need for proxy services at all.
> WHOIS-WG mailing list
> WHOIS-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> WHOIS WG Wiki:
More information about the At-Large