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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Corrigendum:

Instead of,

> 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...

The above paragraph should read:

But I don't see the equivalent of ICANN (a private
corporation, with global scope) in telecommunications by whom the
operators (of national networks) would say they are _required_ to
publish client's personal data. In this case, they only need to be
consistent with their national law, which is normal. 
Besides, having an electronic database publicly available and
completely searchable on a global network, from which you get
someone's personal contact details by the simple clue of a domain
name, is not the same as having the data published in hard copy (in
most countries), or even available on the web or stored in any
searchable electronic form (usually, provided that you are already in
posession of at least one _personal_ entry, e.g. name). In addition,
number of countries in the latter case provide the necessary privacy
policy and data protection guidelines (e.g. in a country like France
where I lived several years), but then again, things might vary from
a country to another... Thus, the necessity not to impose globally in
the name of ICANN, anything that is not necessary for it to achieve
its mission.

Mawaki



--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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