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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anthony,

--- Anthony Harris <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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?

Here in the US and was registering under gTLDs.

> 2) I beleive that to be unlisted in a phone book,
>     there is normally a charge?

But I don't see what is the equivalent of IACNN (a private
corporation) by whom the registrar will say they are _required_ to
publish your personal data. Besides, having an electronic database
publicly available, is not the same as having the data published in
hard copy even if the data is stored in an electronic form (and
governed with privacy/data protection guidelines, e.g. in a country
like France where I lived several years), but I guess things might
vary from a country to another...

> 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.

Well, in my case, it turns out (as I said some time ago) that I used
to have a very small number of spam on that account, the increase has
been dramatic short after registering a DN related to that account,
while at the same time I started getting calls about web site hosting
(am also addressing here Bruce's remark about this). Eventually, I
asked the last person who called me where she got my contacts from,
she said they were given a list and she didn't know, but kindly
offered that if I wish she could remove my phone contact from the
list, and they will just send me emails about their services, which I
accepted. Of course I wouldn't infer as a scientific truth (I
presented this as a story, and I think it's worth anything you can
read in newspaper) that that necessarily causes this; for this is
just one occurrence, and it might be, or not, a coincidence. But in
the mean time and at my micro-level, I can only say chances are...

Anyway, even if you have evidence that my experience is not
generalizable (which does not necessary mean the spam increase isn't
related to the Whois being public, in my specific case), the whole
argument remains.

Mawaki


> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> 
>