Registry Constituency supports WHOIS privacy

[Norbert Klein]

KathrynKL at AOL.COM wrote:

> All:
> I thought you might want to see something heartening.  As the WHOIS
> Task Force moves forward to offer the Council suggestions on a modern
> "purpose" for the WHOIS data and database, the Registry Constituency
> has submitted a strong pro-privacy statement supporting the withdrawal
> of personal data from the public WHOIS database.  It cites the Article
> 29 Working Group -- EU Data Protection Commissioners -- and their
> comments to ICANN and the Task Force.
>
> This statement full supports what Milton and I have argued for in the
> Task Force.  I think you will enjoy it.
>
> Regards, Kathy

=

Thanks, Kathy,

for this reference to the "purpose" of the whole WHOIS exercise.

This motivated me to look again an old comment I had written:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00044.html

from which I quote only some sections here:

= =


      [comments-whois] WHOIS: Process and Substance

    * /To/: comments-whois at dnso.org <mailto:comments-whois at dnso.org>
    * /Subject/: [comments-whois] WHOIS: Process and Substance
    * /From/: Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net <mailto:nhklein at gmx.net>>
    * /Date/: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 18:46:09 +0700
    * /Sender/: owner-comments-whois at dnso.org
      <mailto:owner-comments-whois at dnso.org>
    * /User-Agent/: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
      rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ICANN Reform Process, triggered by Stewart Lynn's paper "ICANN - The
Case for Reform" stated: "Undue focus on process to the exclusion of
substance and effectiveness is the second major problem facing ICANN."

[snip]

The report shows in much detail the tremendous work which went into the
effort to improve the usability of data of domain holders. Two special
concerns are addressed throughout: accuracy, as well as uniformity and
consistency of the data held in different data bases as a precondition
to searchability and cross-registry WHOIS services. And secondly:
concerns about marketing users and bulk access. The first concern
resulted in elaborate and expensive to implement recommendations.

[snip]

The final section of the presentation asked how to "weigh the legitimate
interests of bulk access to WHOIS against the preferences expressed by
registrants," and it mentions "numerous legitimate uses being served by
bulk access" (without spelling them out), as well as again the fact that
the survey showed clear "objections to bulk access use for marketing
purposes."

So far the PROCESS. I had expected that now the SUBSTANCE would come at
the end: Why would someone buy these data for up to $10,000 if not for
business purposes? The presentation seems to hint at the answer: the
provisions of access "should be evaluated to determine whether the
following is feasible," that is, to limit access to "those who are able
to articulate a legitimate need, 'legitimate' still to be developed."

It is surprising that after so much technical and administrative process
discussed an answer to the substantial question - what is legitimate
use, so that the privacy of registrants data is protected - is still to
be developed?

Or could this have to be expected anyway, as - according to Stewart
Lynn's vision - "the driving notion today, with the renewed focus
precipitated by the events of 9/11, must be effectiveness."

I walked away from the Shanghai presentation with the question: Is the
alternative really "substance or process," or is it "legitimacy or
effectiveness"? An effectiveness to serve which goals?

I share these considerations together with a plea to play substantial
attention to the protection of the registrants. It will become more and
more difficult, in the structures envisioned by the ICANN Board for the
next year until a new report is due to the US Department of Commerce, to
see how this voice, the voice of the end-users, of the non-commercials
and of the members-at-large, can be articulated in a way that it is not
relegated to the end of long processes, and then it is still to be
clarified what is legitimate.

= =

What is the legitimate purpose is still not agreed upon.

Norbert