Re: [council] Regarding data collected and the purpose of collecting data

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mawaki,

1) In what country were you living when you
   registered a domain name? Was there no
   country code domain you could resort to,
   and thus be protected by the national legal
   privacy framework?
2) I beleive that to be unlisted in a phone book,
   there is normally a charge?
3) I get 300 spams a day, mostly from Asia, and
   I dont have a domain name of any sort, nor am
   I listed in any whois database.
4) Your repeated references to the problem of access
    to data have been exhaustively discussed within the
    Whois task force, actually since mid 2001.... Tiered
    access for entitled parties is of course a natural solution.
    (And we did think of it quite a while back!)
5. The current discussion is constricted to defining the
   purpose of Whois, access to data I beleive is a subject
   for future discussions?

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Regarding data collected and the purpose of 
collecting data

> Just a story, and a last reflection on this -
>
> The last time I registered a domain name, I was informed that to
> comply with the ICANN requirements, the registrar will display my
> personal data in the WHOIS database which is public. However, they
> offered that for additional fee (I forgot the amount, but it was
> higher that the registration fee itself), they could keep my data
> private to avoid the hassle (spam, etc.) related to the fact that
> anyone would access my personal data, otherwise. And reading more, I
> realized the fee was not collected per registrant, but per name
> registered (even with the same registrar, for each time one
> registers, one must provide one's personal data through the same
> process), so I decided not to pay that fee, and since then I of
> course receive all the spam I can get, etc.
>
> This story shows that (i) the data can be kept private (and of course
> they will be released when requested by legal process), and (ii)
> everyone knows that having the data publicly available feeds spam and
> alike, and could cause hassle (even threaten authors of dissident
> speech in various and unpredicted circomstances).
>
> I have nothing against people making business out of their innovative
> ideas, etc. I just don't think it is ICANN's mission to secure
> business opportunities (especially like that one), while for the sake
> of it, exposing people's privacy without their consent, and
> poptentially people's life.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> --- Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Philip originally wrote;
> > >>> I agree. It is not my logic. I am NOT making the assertion in
> > (2).
> > >>> You assume that because a Registrar agreement TODAY requires
> > public
> > >>> access, that is the status quo upon which we are defining the
> > purpose
> > >>> of WHOIS.
> > >>> In other words you are defining purpose only in the context of
> > the
> > >>> current means of access.
> > >>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Ross replied;
> > > The implication is quite obviously different than how it appears
> > to you.
> > > The assumptions made have nothing to do with the status quo, and
> > > everything to do with refining the status quo to make it more
> > useful and
> > > more meaningful to a broader set of participants. This is what
> > our
> > > policy development processes are all about - change.
> > >
> >
> > Apologies, its early around these parts - this last paragraph
> > should
> > have read:
> >
> > The implication is quite obviously different than how it appears to
> > you.
> > The assumptions made have nothing to do with setting definitions in
> >
> > terms of the the status quo, and everything to do with refining the
> >
> > status quo to make it more useful and more meaningful to a broader
> > set
> > of participants. This is what our policy development processes are
> > all
> > about - change.