Hi Kathy,<br><br>For a moment, imagining what it would be like if I were the labelled 'bad guy' to be vanquished both online and real life? <br><br>Thus grounded on below advise from my colleague Henry, I pray for us to all think from The Original Position and choose to preserve individual registrant's privacy on WHOIS data.<br>
<br>thanks,<br><br>Alex<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Henry Maina</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:henry@article19.org">henry@article19.org</a>></span><br>Date: Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:30 AM<br>
Subject: RE: Thinking from the original position<br>To: Alex Gakuru <<a href="mailto:gakuru@gmail.com">gakuru@gmail.com</a>><br><br><br>The <span>Original</span> <span>Position</span> is a central feature in John Rawls' social contract account of justice as fairness set forth in A Theory of Justice<br>
<br>
It is designed to fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted
in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. It is the <span>position</span> of a free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice.<br>
<br>
Its distinguishing feature is the veil of ignorance: to ensure
impartiality of judgement , the parties are denied knowledge of their
personal characteristics, social and historical circumstances.<br>
<br>
See a book called A theory of Justice by John Rawls<br>
<br>
HENRY O. MAINA<br>
DIRECTOR<br>
ARTICLE 19 KENYA/EASTERN AFRICA<br>
P O BOX 2653,00100<br>
NAIROBI<br>
TEL:+254 (20) 3862230/2<br>
FAX:+254 (20) 3862231<br>
EMAIL: <a href="mailto:henry@article19.org" target="_blank">henry@article19.org</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote style="margin-left:0in;margin-right:1.18in;margin-bottom:0in">
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:10pt"><b>Hi
All,</b></font></font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:10pt"><b>G<font>re<font>at thanks to Amr
for the fir<font>st dra<font>ft of
comments to the </font></font></font></font></b></font></font><b>Thick
Whois PDP W<font>orking Group</font>. As you know,
the question on the table is whether
a “thick Whois model” – one in which all Whois data is held
and
made available by the Registry (e.g., Verisign) and not the
Registrar
– should be the model for all existing and all new gTLDs.</b>
<blockquote style="margin-left:0in;margin-right:1.18in;margin-bottom:0in">
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:10pt"><b>For
.COM, it's a huge issue. It is a “thin” registry, and 100
million+ Whois records are stored by the registrar pursuant
to local
laws (including local privacy and free speech laws). Whether
we can
convert these 100 million+ records to a single database –
and
whether we want to – are questions for this group.</b></font></font></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left:0in;margin-right:1.18in;margin-bottom:0in">
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:10pt"><b>Further,
the issue of “Whois” data, service and protocol are all up
in the
air. If someday we reach agreement that this very personal
data –
that can expose individuals and organizations to threat for
what they
say and share online (including political, religious and
ethnic
minority views and dissent, including non-commercial
activity) –
should be private, then a single centralized Registry Whois
database
creates a single point of access. That means that should
Registries
be cozy with their local governments, all of this data may
be
relinquished without due process, or even subject to
criminal laws
that are non-standard in the world (e.g., Syria, N.Korea,
China).</b></font></font></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left:0in;margin-right:1.18in;margin-bottom:0in">
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:10pt"><b>The
fact is that registrants know their registrars and it is to
their
registrars that the Whois information is provided. Most
registrants
will think they are protected under those rules. Despite the
fact
that New gTLDs (for this round, at least) require a
centralized Whois
– with the Registry – I remain deeply concerned about the
consolidation of the massive .COM Whois (if it's even legal
– see
below) and the standard set for all future registries and
TLDs –
regardless of their political, social, or religious uses.</b></font></font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:10pt"><b><br>
If
NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on – with
thanks!<br>
<br>
<font>Best, <font><font></font>Kathy
Kleima<font>n (veter<font>an of far t<font>oo many Whois ta<font>sk forces
and review t<font>eams<font>...)<br>
<font>p.s. All<font> of
Amr's comments kept<font>, and <font>I added on and filled in some
sections<font>... </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></b></font></font>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>