[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-whois] Both Transfers and WHOIS Reports are pos...

[Sarah Andrews]

Before submitting longer comments on the report I would like to point 
out that  issues regarding access to data were specifically NOT 
addressed by the TF at this stage. Instead, the report focuses only 
on the marketing of WHOIS data and its impact on personal privacy. 
The TF acknowledges in the report that these other issues need to be 
addressed and recommends that work should continue in this area:

"This Task Force, or another appropriate body, will need to address 
several key issues, including the question of "access" to WHOIS; 
whether differential
access is a useful concept; how standards fit in; and what their 
'status' is; what privacy issues are for individuals versus corporate 
or organizational
representatives listed in WHOIS; how to develop acceptable processes 
with the agreement of the ccTLDs; what national laws may be 
determined to be
applicable."

This is NOT intended to be the final word on privacy and WHOIS 
issues. Rather, it is an attempt to recommend policy in those areas 
where consensus could be easily reached i.e.  bulk access for 
marketing purposes.

So while its true that this report does not offer any satisfactory 
resolution of these issues for the long term, and perhaps the TF can 
be criticized for moving too slowly in this regard, there is at least 
still an opportunity to change current WHOIS policies on disclosure 
of and access to personal information.  I encourage members of this 
constituency to continue to submit comments and to keep the pressure 
on the TF to address these serious privacy concerns.


>Danny:
>The point that you raise is a very good one, and I have written 
>privately to Sarah about it.  So let me ask:    To all in NCC, if 
>you have already submitted comments to the WHOIS Task Force, could 
>you tell us (preferably the whole NCC)
>a) your comments (in brief)
>b) whether they were incorporated into the WHOIS Task Force report and
>c) what remains to be done to better protect privacy.
>
>Comments at this stage of the game will be far more successful if we 
>(even new commenters) can build upon the ideas and proposals of 
>those who have already participated.
>
>With thanks to all who have spent worked on this to date,
>Kathy Kleiman
>
>>you wrote:  "Like telephone numbers, we need an "unlisted" version 
>>of the WHOIS registration for noncommercial domain name 
>>registrants.  But I did not see this idea reflected in the WHOIS 
>>report."
>>
>>Please note that I submitted a similar proposal to the Task Force 
>>in late August at 
>>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc00/msg00015.html
>>
>>One has to wonder if the Task Force ever reads and discusses these 
>>comments, or if they only go through the motions of listing the 
>>comments tendered...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20021202/927f22de/attachment-0001.html>