RE: [dow1tf] Amendments to Preliminary Report #1

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

On the call, we changed the paragraph to read:

"Whois TF 1's goal was to balance the concerns and needs of domain name
registrants, legitimate whois data users, registrars and registries.  We
recognize the need to take into account issues of privacy and data
protection, data accuracy, continued flows of data registrant
accountability, and system burdens. We also recognized the need to ensure
that whatever process we developed must not prevent  exchanges of
information needed to make the DNS as a technical system operate smoothly
and efficiently.  In addition, the task force considered the effects of
proposed changes to the Whois service on the ability of groups such as law
enforcement, intellectual property owners, internet service providers, and
consumers to continue to retrieve information necessary to perform their
functions."

The last sentence is taken from the Description of Work.  I am also going to
note that there was disagreement within the group as to whether the new
policies needed to ensure that these latter groups could continue to access
such information.  {FOLLOWED BY A LIST OF WHICH GROUPS FELT WHICH WAY]

How is that?


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:16 PM
To: harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx;
dfares@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [dow1tf] Amendments to Preliminary Report #1


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Fares" <dfares@xxxxxxxxx>
> I am concerned that Milton's proposal prejudges our own going
> debate as to the definition of a legitimate user, which I would argue
> goes beyond users accessing whois for technical reasons.

Actually the revision does precisely the opposite.
It uses the term "legitimate Whois user" without 
saying anything at all about who is legitimate or
how that is defined. 

Precise text is:
> > "Whois TF 1's goal was to balance the concerns and needs of domain
> > name registrants, legitimate whois data users, registrars and
> > registries. 

It's a simple list. You can't argue with it, really.
Those are the stakeholders. Let's not argue about things we don't need to
argue about. 

> More generally, I disagree that international documents related to the
> "free flow of information" do not address personal contact data.  The
> OECD Guidelines specifically reference balancing privacy protection
> and the free flow of information.

OK. But "balancing" privacy and free flow is not
the same as "not preventing" free flow, which was
your original wording. So I take it you agree with
me that the original wording must be changed. 
The fact is, TF 1 is about access restrictions; 
by definition it will impede the flow of information
to someone, in some as yet undetermined way. 


> I also think that it would be helpful to cite the OECD Guidelines.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
>
> Date sent:      Sun, 09 May 2004 11:07:29 -0400
> From:           "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
> To:             <dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject:        [dow1tf] Amendments to Preliminary Report #1
>
> >
> > As we near completion we should make more use of the list.
> > Teleconferences are better for discussion, but email is better for
> > nailing down wordings.
> >
> > I have gone more carefully through Jeff's draft and propose
> > the following change in the section entitled "Principles for
> > the use of Whois."
> >
> > Existing language:
> > "Whois TF 1's goal was to strike a balance among concerns and needs of
> > the different stakeholders related to accuracy, reliability, access
> > and privacy issues and to ensure that whatever process we developed
> > did not prevent the free flow of information."
> >
> > This language is a bit vague and potentially troublesome. There is no
> > way we can speak of "not preventing the free flow of information" when
> > the whole purpose of this task force is indeed to restrict some
> > parties' access to information. Besides, there are bad overtones to
> > this choice of words. In international treaties and policy, "free flow
> > of information" does not mean personal contact data but news,
> > scientific knowledge, opinion, culture and the like.
> >
> > Here is my proposed new language. It is also cleaner grammatically:
> >
> > "Whois TF 1's goal was to balance the concerns and needs of domain
> > name registrants, legitimate whois data users, registrars and
> > registries. We recognize the need to take into account issues of
> > privacy and data protection, data accuracy, registrant accountability,
> > and system burdens. We also recognized the need to ensure that
> > whatever process we developed must not prevent exchanges of
> > information needed to make the DNS as a technical system operate
> > smoothly and efficiently."
> >
> > Hope this is acceptable to all.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >
>
> David A. Fares
> Director, Electronic Commerce
> U.S. Council for International Business
> dfares@xxxxxxxxx
> Tel: 212-703-5061
>      212-354-4480
> Fax: 212-575-0327
>