Re: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Dierker, Chris, and all,

  I and all of our members ARE not only registrants, they are also all
users, many have IP interests.  So as Dr. Dierker has remarked, we
do have a many and varied membership and yet all support individual
choice in regards to any registrants personal information as it is
represented in a or any Whois record.

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    The term you are referring to is dotcommoner. It was coined back in
> 2001. Nobody represents their interests. They are the backbone of the
> Internet because without them there is no dough. They are not only
> neglected they are rejected, ala At-Large.
>
>   With that said, I believe they are more desirous of privacy than any
> scammers out there. From identity theft to just plain pride they want
> the personal stuff kept that way. So while we want protection for the
> consumer we do not want it at the price of opening up a two way street
> of public disclosure of private matters.
>
>   e
>
>
> kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   It's nice that you are willing to represent the interests of domain
> holders
> jeff. I guess there are only a few people left on the list that
> consider all
> users important, not just registrants. It's in registrants interest to
> have
> private whois. it's in the public, non-domainers interest not to have
> it
> private. The majority of the Internet users are not domain registrants
> in
> case anyone forgot that.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams"
> To: "Dominik Filipp"
> Cc: "icann whois" ; "ga"
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail
>
>
> > Dominik and all,
> >
> > I already have made several constructive suggestions one of which
> > was based on an earlier post by you on this very thread. Maybe you
> > missed it. In the case you did miss posts, let be know if you would
> > like or want the archived URL's for them, and I shall post same
> > again publicly.
> >
> > I have read the Preliminary Draft, and as I have already pointed
> out,
> > along with a few others on the GA, it is fatally flawed, and I did
> provide
> > as to how and where it is flawed in some significant and factual
> detail
> > from
> >
> > a legal aspect and a technical aspect as it directly relates to
> existing
> > and pending law/legislation.
> >
> > I have at the behest of many of our members, all of whom are
> registrants,
> > ask a number of questions which the Preliminary Draft does not
> address,
> > and remain unanswered. I recognize they are very tough questions,
> and
> > raise some embarrassing history. But it is the tough questions that
> need
> > and indeed must be answered and addressed adequately if a sound and
> > legal Whois policy is ever to be arrived at.
> >
> > I know it is abundantly clear and factual that no single server
> level
> > application can address the many and varied legal requirements of
> > many different countries, as well as most U.S. states legal
> requirements
> > and at the same time provide for privacy and security laws as well
> > as integrity of access use and data integrity in the Whois data base
>
> > itself...
> >
> > Dominik Filipp wrote:
> >
> >> Jeff,
> >>
> >> if you read the Preliminary Draft and my paper once again you'll
> find
> >> the most part of your response answered or as holding no merit.
> >>
> >> As we are discussing the whois issue as a whole here, some
> proposals are
> >> expected and worthy. If you have some don't hesitate to post it.
> >> Criticism is fine and often useful but it should be balanced out
> with
> >> constructive input.
> >>
> >> Dominik
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:50 AM
> >> To: Dominik Filipp; icann whois
> >> Cc: ga
> >> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail
> >>
> >> Dominik and all,
> >>
> >> Let me first and in different words say, privacy is not a "paid
> >> service"
> >> or a special circumstance. It IS a right in some countries, and
> >> codified in law in most countries as to what degree of privacy any
> >> individual or entity has as a right.
> >>
> >> More comments and remarks in response to yours below...
> >>
> >> Dominik Filipp wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jeff,
> >> >
> >> > firstly, my proposal is just a technical framework on how whois
> >> > records could be structured and accessed respecting the ideas
> we've
> >> > been talking about here.
> >>
> >> Dominik, the devil is always in the details. And in the case of
> Whois,
> >> in the technical details.
> >>
> >> > The 'access modes' mentioned in the proposal, at this very first
> >> > phase, is nothing but a technical granulation, or an 'access'
> >> > property attached to single whois entry. I'm still persuaded that
> such
> >>
> >> > a granulation is technically important just for supporting
> different
> >> > whois policy models being taken into consideration whenever local
> law
> >> > enforcement is applied and demanded.
> >>
> >> Individuals and NGO's demand privacy, not law enforcement. Law
> >> enforcement enforces the law, courts adjudicate law, and
> governments
> >> make law.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > As you can see, the current Preliminary Draft on Whois we are
> about to
> >>
> >> > comment now is also focused mainly on technical and structural
> issues,
> >>
> >> > so do I.
> >>
> >> Again as Whois is largely technically oriented, the devil and
> whatever
> >> policy will largely depend solely in the technical aspects.
> >>
> >> > The main difference I see between the Draft and my proposal (I
> tend to
> >>
> >> > say 'our' proposal as I've just taken various ideas from GA into
> >> > account and put them in a more formalized framework) is a more
> dynamic
> >>
> >> > approach supported in the proposal.
> >>
> >> No not 'our' proposal, but your interpretation of what some GA
> members
> >> have asserted.
> >>
> >> > In the Draft the model is somewhat
> >> > fixed in favor of data publishing.
> >>
> >> There is no such thing as "Fixed" in either data publishing, and
> Whois
> >> is not a data publishing application nor was it ever designed or
> >> intended to be, nor is Whois a means of publishing or displaying
> private
> >> information,
> >>
> >> and it was never intended to be.
> >>
> >> > If you want more privacy you are
> >> > obligated to qualify for the "Special Circumstances" process
> which is
> >> > a paid service and your request can still be refused unless you
> meet
> >> > adequate standards for that purpose. At the moment nobody knows
> what
> >> > the standards are (or will be) like. As a technical proposal it
> has
> >> > nothing to do with law enforcement. The only important question
> >> > regarding law issues in the technical proposal is whether we are
> >> > somehow able to manage different (national) policies on technical
>
> >> > level, thanks to a suitable granularity.
> >>
> >> In one Whois access application it is not possible to manage
> different
> >> (national) laws or policies.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > As far as I remember, there has been a long-term discussion out
> here
> >> > supporting the natural human right to keep individual privacy
> >> > similarly as it's arranged for individual gun holders, driving
> >> licenses, etc.
> >> > Frankly, first when I was reading the Draft I was for publishing
> as
> >> > much data as possible regardless of the 'type' of registrants.
> >> > However, after going further into reading the posts here I've
> realized
> >>
> >> > the importance of individual privacy (over commercial business
> >> > companies). That's why I've decided to design the proposal more
> >> dynamic.
> >> >
> >> > Secondly, I mean that whois records and the whois policy are two
> >> > different things. Again, in the Draft, you can notice calling for
> a
> >> > meaningful and operational policy capable of enforcing all whois
> >> > related laws every registrant is obligated to abide by.
> >>
> >> Again whom is going to enforce privacy violations for any Whois
> policy?
> >> Surely not ICANN or ICANN's registrars or registries!
> >>
> >> > See, for instance, the
> >> > section Inaccurate Data in the Draft. So, the need for functional
>
> >> > whois policy will come forth anyway. At the moment there is just
> a
> >> > very hazy understanding of how this could be actually reached,
> but the
> >>
> >> > important question is whether the future whois model will be
> flexible
> >> > enough to adapt to possible approaches.
> >>
> >> With a single access application it cannot.
> >>
> >> > At this very first phase of the new whois model I don't care
> about the
> >>
> >> > policy as well, there will be (I hope) enough room for further
> >> > discussions over that later.
> >>
> >> The Whois policy is grounded and dependent on the technical details
> of
> >> access methods and/or applications. Hence not caring about the
> Whois
> >> policy cannot be a logical approach or logical in and of itself.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Now, let me show an example. The Dutch whois model strongly
> prefers
> >> > publishing all data, on the other hand the French model prefers
> (or
> >> > allows/requires) more privacy. Both models are inherently
> incompatible
> >>
> >> > and none static model can fit both expectations. Yeah, you can
> still
> >> > make a classical cut and state that whois record will contain
> just
> >> > half of data to 'satisfy' both models. No need to say it's a poor
>
> >> > solution that definitely fails in the moment when both
> governments
> >> > decide to strictly follow their own laws.
> >> > In the dynamic model the situation is solvable as follows - when
> the
> >> > registrant fills in the country in the registration form, the
> next
> >> > form (with registrant data) offers suitable 'access modes'
> according
> >> > to the country selected; for Dutch registrant the only choice is
> >> 'Exposed'
> >> > access mode, for French registrant there are all three modes
> available
> >>
> >> > he/she can choose from. The resulting two whois records perfectly
> fit
> >> > the national law requirements.
> >>
> >> This will not work because you assume that whomever/registrant is
> doing
> >> the query will fill inn his or her honest country or origin in the
> >> registration form.
> >> Such a notion is foolish and folly to assume for every query.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sure, there are many open questions remaining. But we are at
> least
> >> > able to distinguish between the technical (data & handling) whois
>
> >> > structure on one side, and applicable (national) law enforcement
> >> > related to whois accuracy on the other side. Moreover, they both
> seem
> >> to be compatible.
> >>
> >> No they are not nor can they ever be in one access application.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And finally, Jefsey is right, the dynamic model is part of the
> >> > application level and, indeed, its implementation is more complex
> than
> >>
> >> > the static one. I even think that a new RFC will be necessary. So
>
> >> what!
> >> > If we are about to design something new let's design it better.
> >>
> >> I believe Jefsey ment application layer not application level. Such
>
> >> application can be executed at the server level, or at the client
> level.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dominik
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:03 PM
> >> > To: Dominik Filipp; icann whois
> >> > Cc: ga
> >> > Subject: Re: [ga] JFC Morfin: people are not for sale
> >> >
> >> > Dominik and all,
> >> >
> >> > Interesting musings and thoughts from JFC here. However Whois is
> >> > ICANN's baby and ICANN's baby alone in as much as policy for
> Whois is
> >> > concerned. W3C, IETF, ect., ect., can of course recommend
> whatever
> >> > they wish. However registrars will have most of the final say in
> >> > regards to Whois policy. Yet here inlies the problem, and/or
> chicken
> >> > and egg situation in respect to Whois and the different legal
> concerns
> >>
> >> > as to what is considered private information and what is not.
> Hence,
> >> > indeed ICANN's registrars by contract to ICANN will be forced or
> >> > otherwise recognize ONE standard and/or policy for Whois data and
> whom
> >>
> >> > has access to what data elements in a Whois query. As privacy
> >> > protections are being increased in some countries and
> dramatically
> >> > eroded in other countries such as the US, a single standard and
> or
> >> > policy is necessary if continuity of Whois data is to be
> maintained
> >> > and considered accurate and reliable. Yet different layers as to
> >> > access can be and are in effect now, can continue to be used as
> long
> >> > as the Whois data base itself is not effected or otherwise
> modified by
> >>
> >> > said applications or said applications are tested and approved by
>
> >> > ICANN and/or its registrars.
> >> >
> >> > This all still leaves the concern or challenge of enforcement of
> any
> >> > and all privacy violations with respect different laws and legal
> >> > systems in various nations. As I have said before, we all have
> many
> >> > times witnessed, neither ICANN nor its registrars can or will
> enforce
> >> > their own standards and/or contract obligations.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeffrey A. Williams
> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders
> strong!)
> >> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> >> Abraham Lincoln
> >>
> >> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very
> >> often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> >>
> >> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> >> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> >> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> >> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> >> ===============================================================
> >> Updated 1/26/04
> >> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> div.
> >> of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> >> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> >> jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact
> >> Number: 214-244-4827
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders
> strong!)
> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> > Abraham Lincoln
> >
> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > ===============================================================
> > Updated 1/26/04
> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827