[At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
Antony Van Couvering
avc at namesatwork.com
Tue May 15 16:16:04 UTC 2012
I don't know what Patrick was thinking, but it's possible he was referring to the fact that the ALAC position on Whois is nearly indistinguishable from the wish list of the trademark lobby, which has in the past fielded and funded a supposedly independent groups to push their agenda. I do not believe that to be the case now, as I have been following this list long enough to understand that the majority of the participants in this group are true believers.
The flaw in the position of the Whois Policy Review Team is quite simple: only the most idiotic of criminals would provide real Whois information, and without comparison of state-issued documents to registration information, there is no way to reliably check it. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that domain registrants need to provide notarized signatures (although now that I think of it notaries are also easily bribed). Without that final check, however, the Whois policy as proposed would impose inconvenience and cost on legitimate registrants (the vast majority), and assault some basic human freedoms (such as privacy) in order to achieve what I believe is completely illusory "accuracy." Criminals regularly counterfeit identification documents and even currency -- how hard would it be to fake a Whois record?
Despite the cost imposed on registrants, increased Whois accuracy won't catch any criminals. But it will make it easier for trademark trolls to slice and dice Whois data.
On May 15, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> Dear Patrick:
> 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.
> Kind regards,
> - Carlton
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *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:
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large