[NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] [ncsg-policy] Proposed NCUC Comments on the WHOIS Review Team Discussion Paper

[Nuno Garcia]

Hi all,

I fully agree with Milton's points of view, which ultimately proves (I
think, please correct me if I'm wrong) that WhoIs registration data is
useless. Moreover, the appearance of alternative DNS structures further
labels WhoIs databases as, again, useless.

And this is why we should stick to solid principles to define our position,
and this is why I also agree with Timothe points of view (as stated in his
last email), except with the "driving licence" analogy, that is dangerous,
incorrect and misleading as Milton very well put it (and it seems Nicolas
was the inventor of the analogy...).

If a domain name is public, so it should be its registrants info. I suggest
that if the registrant info cannot be confirmed, then the register should be
voided.

Freedom of speech is still attainable through blogs, public publishing
platforms and so on, so enforcing integrity and veracity of the WhoIS
database is not a limitation at all.

All in all, requiring registrant information is a good principle, not
because of good guys and bad guys, but promoting sound information in a
database is a good principle. (we should avoid using terms such as good,
bad, and so on). This is not a technical issue, it is an issue of
principles.

And here, maybe here, we can apply the analogy: nowhere in the physical
(real) world you are allowed to register a name and not provide a sound
identification of who registers the name.

Warm regards,

Nuno Garcia


On 23 July 2011 16:25, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> ** **
>
> *If you register a domain name, you are becoming part of the network
> infrastructure* - and that requires that you be contactable.****
>
> *[Milton L Mueller] *
>
> * *
>
> *This is a point that I have heard repeated endlessly by some people in
> the technical community. I don’t accept the logic here (indeed, I am not
> sure there is any logic). A domain name registration is not part of the
> “network infrastructure” by most scientific/economic definitions of
> “infrastructure.” DNS is an application. The infrastructure is the physical
> servers and lines that resolve domain names. Indeed, as you have pointed out
> in earlier messages, the DNS is not even required to maintain connectivity.
> *
>
> * *
>
> *But so what if it is part of the “infrastructure”? Everything connected
> to the Internet (by this logic) could be considered a “part of the network
> infrastructure.” Including this PC or my mobile phone.*
>
> * *
>
> *The idea that being connected to the internet, or having facilities
> connected to the internet, requires you to be “contactable” is not as simple
> as you make it out to be. Contactable by whom? Contactable when? Under what
> conditions? *
>
> * *
>
> *When you say that contactability is “required” you are again using words
> and concepts in a very imprecise way. Required by whom? By what? What kind
> of a “requirement” is this? A legal one? No. A contractual one? Maybe - but
> that is precisely what we are debating, whether ICANN contracts should
> require it or be amended, so in effect you are just begging the question.
> *
>
> * *
>
> *A lot depends on what we mean by “contactable.”*
>
> * *
>
> *In some sense, no one believes that domain registrants should not be
> contactable. Let me repeat that, because it’s vitally important that anyone
> participating in this debate understand this. NO ONE WANTS TO INSULATE
> DOMAIN REGISTRANTS FROM ALL CONTACT. The issue is what method that contact
> takes and what conditions are attached to it, and who controls the type of
> contact. *
>
> * *
>
> *You are advocating that unconditional, unrestricted contact, at all
> times, globally, for any and every purpose, including bad ones. Be brave and
> admit that. *
>
> * *
>
> *Others are arguing for applying some conditions and restrictions to
> access; perhaps the same that apply to, e.g., drivers license information,
> telephone numbers, school records, and so on. Burden of proof is on you, I
> think, to explain why having a domain name creates such an enormous,
> unmoderated obligation, such that your name, address, email should be open
> to global, unrestricted access, while having a telecom access line or a
> telephone number does not impose the same requirement. *
>
> * *
>
> Perhaps it's that your domain name isn't resolvable from some part of the
> world - or has invalid signatures that cause web browsing to fail, is
> supplying poisoned cache records, or is supporting a DDOS attack.  Or your
> mail server is generating spam.  Whether you personally operate those
> servers, or contract someone else to do so for your domain - once you
> register a domain name, you are responsible for having them operate
> responsibly.  And "responsibly" isn't subjective - it's the subject of the
> RFCs and standards that make the nework function.  This is *not* religion,
> politics, morality or personal hygiene.  If you register a domain name and
> do not live up to your responsbilities, the privilege of having a domain
> name, like that of driving, can be revoked.  That doesn't prevent you from
> using the internet without one - or using postal mail or the telephone.  *
> ***
>
> *[Milton L Mueller] *
>
> * *
>
> *I am afraid you are vastly overstating the value of having a Whois record
> that points to my name and email address. Having that record there does not
> guarantee that I will respond, does not guarantee that the info is accurate,
> and does not guarantee that you or anyone else will be able to fix any and
> every problem that happens. Furthermore, most of the contacting that takes
> place these days has nothing to do with the technical functioning of the
> domain – it has to do with what came to be known in earlier debates as
> “other purposes” – i.e., the desire of law enforcement and trademark lawyers
> to regulate conduct on the net. An exchange of whois data limited
> exclusively to registrars/registries and, after meeting a certain threshold,
> law enforcement, can meet most of those legitimate needs.*****
>
>  ****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110723/a15aac67/attachment-0001.html>