[dow1tf] Summary of Major Points from the Last Call

[Marc Schneiders]

Two remarks:

1. As I've said before (but perhaps not on this list): The distinction
between port 43 access and access over other protocols (mainly http,
port 80) is irrelevant for privacy related aspects (and I think for
all other [including data mining] too, but that is not our concern).
So I do not understand why Neumann links the keeping of port 43 to his
proposal.

2. A white list is utterly impossible to maintain in any proper way,
unless ICANN develops into a big bureaucratic organisation with
offices all over the world. How is ICANN going to determine who is a
consumer protection org in Tuvalu or Aruba? It cannot. So the net
result of a proposal like this, is that only IP lawyers will get
access (or the forms that do the policing of domains for them, which
were heavily represented at the recent ICANN meeting in Rome).


On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, at 13:43 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

> Members:
> Here is one of the issues that Whois Task Force 1 is discussing.
> Most aspects of TF1 are going well, for example there is a
> recognition that sensitive data elements might need to be
> restricted and that those who request sensitive data need
> to identify themselves. However, I am concerned about this
> suggestion of a "white list:" (Jeff Neuman is chair of the TF 1)
>
> comments welcome --MM
>
> >>> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us> 04/06/04 10:12AM >>>
> >7)  Other Ideas
> >In addition, if Port 43 were retained, the group discussed the
> >possibility of having a central authority (not a registry or registrar)
> >to approve entities that could use Port 43 (i.e., a "White List" of IP
> > addresses).  In this scenario, a White List would be created of
> >Requestors that have proven themselves as "legitimate users"
> >of Whois information (i.e.,  Law Enforcement, Consumer
> >organization, Intellectual Property Organizations, etc.)  This list
> >would be provided to the registries and registrars and only
> >those Requestors sending requests through Port 43 would be
> >allowed to access the Whois information.  Questions arose
> >concerning (a) who would operate this White List, (b) what
> >would be the criteria for being on this White List, and (c) whether
> >it was actually feasible to implement.
>
> >Please feel free to comment.
>