Re: [council] Compromise wording on WHOIS

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Philip,

Thanks for your effort, but until further notice, this is NOT really
a _compromise_ definition of the purpose of Whois. In my opinion, a
compromise would have been something that would have brought together
or closer previously opposing viewpoints, and be recognized by the
opponents as such. I am afraid we are still far from such
configuration; instead, what you're proposing is at best, a revision
trying to address the same initial F2's own flaws and weaknesses, and
doing so by all means while giving up nothing of the intention of the
proponents of the initial F2 (let alone any compromise with F1),
you're now providing us with the improbable answer for a question
that is not asked, as rightly pointed out by Ross.

Nevertheless, I'm still willing to understand, with more
comments/questions below... 

--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

>  
> Council,
> In preparation for the discussion and possible vote on WHOIS
> purpose please find attached a
> proposed compromise definition.
> The background to this compromise is as follows:
>>>SNIP>>>

> 1. it speaks not of the purpose of "WHOIS" but the purpose for
> which the "data is
> collected". This reflects the concerns rightly raised by the
> non-commercial constituency 

Thank you for recognizing this. But the problem is we are requested
to define the purpose of the WHOIS, which is genuinely and primarily
an ICANN issue and must comply with its mission and core values, but
not "the purpose for which the data is collected," which might vary
from one country (even from one registrar) to the other while
addressing the broader requirement by ICANN.

>>>SNIP>>>
> 3. The definition is silent on questions of subsequent access to
> data or data publication.

If I understand well, are you saying that your proposed definition of
the purpose for which the data is collected does not imply that the
WHOIS data must remain publicly accessible?

>>>SNIP>>>
> I hope that by addressing the concerns above, we can get the full
> support of Council to a
> definition describing the purposes of data collection and one that
> is not blind to the use
> that such data is being put today in pursuit of consumer protection
> and measures to prevent
> crime. 

For one, there is still that confusion between the purpose and the
actual use of the Whois, and furthermore it is not ICANN mission or
role to enforce law, or prevent crimes. There are institutions for
that, and in the states enjoying the rule of law, they have always
done their job by going through due processes. The IP Whois clearly
catters for the need to track any malicious or dangerous
cyber-attacks to the origin of the IP address attached to it. And if
necessary, the rest is a matter of normal legal processes as in
everyday life. Really, I don't understand where that idea that
without the DNS Whois readily available to anyone, the world would be
more dangerous than it was before. 

The truth is that a big part of the evil is in the so-called remedy
itself; the current use of the gTLD Whois allows the cyber-vandalism
that we have been experiencing, as I have myself from the day I
registered a domain name and had to leave an email contact in the
Whois. Where I used to have 3 or 4 messages in my bulk folder for
weeks, I've started receiving several dozens of spam messages every 3
or 4 days, including phishing and all kinds of deceptive messages
with various character strings (ascii and different asians, though I
can't read the latter), the kind of message that could harm a user
who is not well aware, as there are still several millions on this
earth, and the kind of traffic that eats the very limited and costly
bandwidth available in the developing world.

The new formulation reads: "to resolve [...] technical, networking,
or legal issues related to the registration or use of a gTLD domain
name." Could you tell us, Philip, what does that phrase not include
for an ISP or a Business, for example? What type of question, query
or request is not covered there? Is there anything left out? Nearly
everything could be said technical, networking or legal - is that
ICANN's mission?

Mawaki

To pursue a vote that would divide Council between the
> previous formulations 1 and 2
> would not move us forward. I hope this third way ( excuse me
> sounding like UK prime minister
> Tony Blair!) will be a positive way forward for Council and one
> that will also get the full
> support of the GAC.
> 
> 
> Philip
> 
>