Re: [council] Compromise wording on WHOIS

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

It has been an interesting reading and debate on this subject.  Thank you
all for your views and clarifications.  I have read the Final task force
report in detail on the purposes of Whois and of Whois contacts, dated 15
March 2006.  I have also discussed with various colleagues and businesses
regarding the issue.  I have also seen the latest compromise sent out by
Phillip.

Here is my short response to the issue and my views:

 1- I will have to agree we are tryng to address an original question in
WHOIS that is not stated clearly i.e 'what is the purpose' of WHOIS'; where
the original intent of WHOIS( purely technical) and its current practice/use
has come a long way, that which has raised the 'legitimacy issue', that  we
have at our table.

2- Both Formulations are similar, in that they stand for privacy issues from
different angles.  The major gap between the two as I see it is on the
question of 'use'.  However, given ICANN's scope and mandate, this 'use'
seem to be out of scope, unless ICANN's 'mission' is expanded to that of
policing the Internet.  As such, F2 appear to shade down among other things,
the freedom of speech issue.  Additionally, aside from scope of ICANN,
the current revision of the F2 have not taken into account the scope within
the TOR of the TF work.  It deals with the 'collection of data vs. the '
purpose of data'.

3 - As I see it, most of the questions and concerns raised by F2 i.e, spam,
phishing, legal, privacy etc.. has been addressed adequately by F1.  It is
available for access to resolve all other technical, networking, legal or
social issues or concerns consistent with law and due process.
However, without any implication, I think F2 fails to recognize that its
proposal as such would circumvent due process in the data collection
process.

4 - I have to also agree that F2 completely ignores the controls that need
to be in place by each registry/registrar to strengthen their compliance in
their contractual requirements.  F2 in this case contradicts itself.

5 - I was hoping the revised 'compromise' proposal would revisit some of the
privacy issues that myself/global Internet community is concerned about, by
explicitly stating that certain detail data, i.e address, phone no etc..
information was to be omitted.  This was the basis of my support for F2
during our Council meeting in Wellington.


>  Terms of reference no. 3 is quite clear:
> >
> >
> > "Determine what data collected should be available for public access in
> > > the context of the purpose of WHOIS. Determine how to access data that
> > > is not available for public access."
> >
> >
6- In this case, I find that F1 appears to be in line with ICANN's mission
scope and mission and  F1 strikes a healthy balance between 'use' of data
between the public at large and various interest groups.

On the above grounds, I cannot support F2 to date.
Thank you and regards,
Sophia


On 10/04/06, Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Greetings to all!
>
> Philip,
>
> So now you are recognizing that the Formulations #2 are all flawed,
> and the only way for you to justify them is to redesign the terms of
> reference of the WHOIS Task Force? Of course the question of use
> divides us, and to address that, we need to address the bigger
> picture as to what the Whois has been defined to achieve. For the use
> cannot go against the purpose, right? or are you asking ICANN to
> cover a misuse?
>
> It's fine with me if you want to define the "purpose for which data
> is collected," but what I'm saying is defining that, based on the
> practice, does not make it the legitimate purpose of the WHOIS which
> ICANN is concerned with. So you cannot by any means substitute that
> definition to the definition of the purpose of WHOIS (not even by
> criticizing the TF or its report).
>
> We are all for law enforcement, with this precision: through due
> processes, as it has worked fine so far in the democratic countries
> we are living in, or would like to live in. And I'm sure it will
> still work.
>
> Formulation #1 is not only an "historic truth" that is still a source
> of legitimacy (since we're still living in the era of that history,
> as long as ICANN has the mission it has as of today), but it is an
> effort to keep a healthy consistency between the mission and purpose
> on one hand and the use on the other hand, while balancing different
> interests.
> Formulation #2 is an attempt to entrench today's practice and use
> into the ICANN's mission and core values and maybe subsequently, into
> its Bylaws.
>
> The Wednesday call will take place early in the morning o my side,
> and I have other commitments an hour or so after the planned starting
> time. So I' hopinp that the Council will not divert its business to
> debating what would be the best Formulation #2, or playing a remake
> of the Whois TF's work. Let's vote between Formulation #1 and
> Formulation #2 (revised or not), keeping in mind the question we are
> here to address: the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, thanks you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>
> --- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ross, Council members
> >
> > The question
> > ----------------
> > I make no apology for changing the question.
> > The TF failed to come up with an answer to the question posed, so
> > this does suggest it might
> > have been the wrong one in the first place.
> > Evidence for this assertion is all around us. If one reads the
> > argumentation in the TF
> > report from those in favour of formulation 1 or 2, it is clear many
> > favour one option or the
> > other based on issues of data use.
> > It is the question of use that divides us.  We cannot escape
> > addressing this issue.
> >
> > The objective
> > ------------------
> > If Council accepts that use by law enforcement or other parties
> > pursuing objectives of
> > user/consumer protection is an objective we endorse, then we MUST
> > agree to define the
> > "purpose for which data is collected". Without that such use
> > contravenes most data
> > protection laws. This is the issue.
> >
> > The blind alley
> > --------------------
> > Defining WHOIS purpose based on its historic technical context may
> > be a statement of fact
> > but it does nothing to enlighten the WHOIS issues that have been
> > aired over the last 5
> > years.
> > That is our task. Not restating the past.
> > Formulation 1 is an historic truth, conveniently devoid of today's
> > issue.
> > Formulation 2 was attempting to recognise today's issue but used
> > fuzzy language.
> > My compromise seeks to focus the language more specifically on the
> > issue.
> >
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>