Re: [ga] ALAC statement on WHOIS Privacy

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vittorio and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  Below Vittorios remarks/statement/comments are some errors
that need or bare correcting.  (See more below)

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> ALAC Calls for Progress on WHOIS Privacy
>
> October 29, 2003
>
> In February 2003, the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee issued a formal
> statement on the issues of WHOIS accuracy and bulk access. At the time, we
> remarked on the privacy concerns raised by the policy mandating that domain
> name registrants submit accurate and truthful identifying information while
> giving them no opportunity to protect that information from disclosure or
> public display.

  This is true, however as such violates a number of US and other
countries legal statutes...  As such, the policy is flawed to that
degree.

>
>
> Accuracy was only half the equation, with privacy protections the necessary
> complement.
>
> Although we did not then seek to delay enforcement of accuracy requirements,
> we recommended that work be commenced swiftly to give registrants more and
> better privacy options. We concluded that:
>
>     The Task Force's recommendations to systematically enforce the accuracy
> of WHOIS data shift the existing balance between the interests of data users
> and data subjects in favor of data users. In an environment where
> registrants have perceived "inaccurate" data to be one of the most practical
> methods for protecting their privacy, this shift of balance is reason for
> concern. It will inevitably increase the need for privacy protection
> mechanisms to be built into the contractual framework.

  Most countries legal statutes include a very complete set of legal
guidelines that the WHOIS committee, as expected either ignored
or decidedly remained ignorant of.  Hence such a policy that
ICANN may make that intends of actually does violate such
legal statutes in any country or region (EU for instance), is one
that would suggest or require that stakeholders/users set aside
their personal privacy in such a manner that would endanger
their personal safety.  As such ICANN is in it's errant attitude,
although warned many times by many stakeholders/users,
willfully suggesting or even requiring that stakeholders/users
endanger themselves unnecessarily.

>
>
> Unfortunately, there has been no progress since February. Indeed, on the
> privacy front, there has been regress. Domain name registrants are forbidden
> from using pseudonyms or fuzzy, "inaccurate" data in order to protect their
> privacy, and risk losing their domain name due to "improved" accuracy
> enforcement. Yet there are no new safeguards or mechanisms by which they can
> shield their identifying details from disclosure. As many feared at the time
> the GNSO mandated stricter enforcement of "accuracy" on registrants and
> registrars, domain name registrants (including members of the at-large
> public) lose out.
>
> The small businessperson working from a home office must list that home
> address and telephone number, as must the weblogger who wishes to publish at
> her own domain name.

  This is not accurate as stated.  Privacy laws and/or policies adopted
by countries or regions, take legal precedence.  In some countries,
including the US, home office folks are not as a matter of law,
required to provide their home address as the business address
for their home based business, nor their home Phone #.

> The political dissident who wants to criticize his
> country's political regime is told to disclose his identity or find a
> trustworthy friend who is willing to do so instead. Domain names are
> indisputably a tool of online expression, on an Internet in which
> individuals can speak alongside corporations and governments, yet many
> individuals are chilled by the prospect of signing a "speakers' registry"
> before they can participate fully.
>
> Proxy or escrow services, proposed by many as a privacy solution, have not
> developed to fill the gap. They do not work in practice, giving up the names
> of their clients on a mere request; and even in theory they are a poor
> second-best for registrants seeking full control of their identities. The
> public deserves better.
>
> It is time for ICANN to move forward on privacy.
>
> One simple solution, requiring no new infrastructure, would be to make all
> data fields in WHOIS optional, allowing domain name registrants themselves
> to make the choice between contactability and privacy. A more complete
> solution would also permit registrants to give accurate information to their
> registrars without putting that into the generally-accessible WHOIS (the
> online equivalent of an unlisted telephone number).
>
> ICANN owes it to the Internet-using public to complete the equation begun
> early this year. It should remedy the imbalance between data users and data
> subjects by allowing registrants to limit data collection and disclosure in
> domain name registration and WHOIS, and should do so without delay.
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801