[ga] JFC Morfin: people are not for sale

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

--- <Forwarded on JFC's behalf> ---
 
Dear Chris and Dominik,
what you call for cannot be provided by the rudimentary Whois 
information system, even if enhanced. You need a site information or 
certificate system as per W3C, etc. This is because that kind of 
solution do not belong to the network layer but to the application 
layer and to procedures to be supported by the browsers, not by the 
network. The HTTP protocol is the same for e-merchants for private 
exchanges. That is the Internet layer (public whois is of no actual 
techical interest and illegal in many countries, so the US attitude 
is actually a layer violation). This means that the proposition of 
Dominik cannot be technically enforced at that layer as Chris 
question it. But it could at the application layer (W3C has a 
proposition I think).

Information disclosure on a site owner should be made necessary when 
a site function asks for information on the user. This is an IETF/W3C 
and legal issue to be discussed at the IGF (I understand that France 
has invited a mid-term IGF meeting this year on the matter through 
the individual indentity issue).

No national culture, practices and laws should be attempted to be 
globally enforced against others.

The real problem we meet here is a lack of analysis, of consideration 
of ISO by the Internet Governance, and of networked digital usage 
oriented Technical Committee at ISO. I do not think it is something 
too much complicate to obtain, if we wanted seriously to document it. 
First you become a member of your national standardisation body 
(ANSI, AFNOR, BSI, DENIC, etc. individuals usually can be). Then you 
follow the procedures. And we ally for an international lobbying. 
This is the kind of things @large should have carried.

In most of the cases people do not oppose: they just do not know 
what/how/why - in this case this is something we could help. This is 
all the more urgent that a replacement of the ISO reference for the 
Internet, by commercial data, is engaged. This can only lead to 
global instability and to a possible Internet split.
All the best.
jfc

At 18:51 08/01/2007, kidsearch wrote:

>I see that as completely doable Dominik and appreciate the time you 
>spent on that. One question is would it be enforceable? I mean say I 
>registered a domain nameand said i was a nonprofit or noncomm, but 
>then built a commercial website anyway. There could be a link in the 
>whois, "report this website as noncompliant with whois rules" where 
>users can report that it is a commercial website and not a noncomm.
>
>Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Dominik Filipp"
<dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
>To: "ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 7:49 AM
>Subject: [ga] Whois more in detail
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>after reviewing the posts sent here so far, I also tend to prefer
>>privacy to data disclosure in the whois. However, to satisfy the
Chris's
>>(and also my) need, the privacy on whois data should be something that
>>individuals and, possibly, non-com organizations should be allowed to
>>qualify for only.
>>To be more explicit, my opinion on how the whois record could be
>>accessed and dealt with (including the ideas from GA) is as follows
>>
>>Basically, I agree with dividing the whois record into the Holder
>>contact and the OPoC contact parts as proposed in the Preliminary
Draft.
>>Furthermore, I see three distinct modes in which to access the whois
>>data
>>
>>Access Modes
>>------------
>>
>>a) 'Exposed' mode; data is publicly visible when visiting the whois
page
>>(much like it works now).
>>
>>b) 'On-Request' mode; data is still publicly accessible but obtainable
>>solely via explicit request sent to the registrar that will send the
>>requested data back to the requester's email address. In this case the
>>request (email, IP?) could be logged. The access should avoid
automatic
>>data harvesting and make data access more difficult for
>>spammers/scammers.
>>The 'request-response' mechanism could be improved by requiring to
input
>>an image-code before sending the request, and/or an email confirmation
>>by the requester prior sending the requested data from the registrar
>>back to the requester.
>>
>>c) 'Locked' mode; data is inaccessible to public but obtainable on
>>behalf of explicit eligible requests (subpoena, law enforcement) from
>>registrar (or thick registry).
>>
>>WhoIs Data
>>----------
>>
>>1. Holder Part
>>Holder may at his/her own discretion publish all data (Holder's full
>>address, phone number and email address), but also
>>
>>a) if Holder is an individual or a non-com organization then he/she
may
>>just publish the name and country/state (short form), or to suppress
>>data publication at all. In such a case the whois record would contain
>>(in the Holder's part) just an assigned Holder's ID.
>>The fact that the Holder is an individual or a non-com org could be
>>specified during the domain registration.
>>All three 'Exposed', 'On-Request', and 'Locked' access are applicable
>>here.
>>
>>b) if Holder is a commercial organization then the necessary minimum
of
>>data published is company name and country/state (but, perhaps, more).
>>Only 'Exposed' access mode is applicable here.
>>
>>2. OPoC Part
>>OPoC contact part could contain full contact information (including
>>address, phone, and email). However, not all data would be directly
>>exposed to the public (e.g., phone and email).
>>The 'Exposed' and 'On-Request' access modes are applicable here.
>>However, for commercial companies, all OPoC entries should be
'Exposed',
>>except email that could be 'On-Request' (anti-spam precaution).
>>
>>As for the granularity of the access modes, one (extreme) possibility
is
>>to allow to set up specific access mode for each data entry (address,
>>phone, email, etc.); or to specify a set of blocks each sharing the
same
>>access mode, etc.
>>
>>A whois record could look like
>>
>>a) Individual Holder (opting the private whois form)
>>
>>I. variant                          II. Variant
>>----------                          -----------
>>HOLDER CONTACT [Locked]             HOLDER CONTACT [Locked]
>>Holder ID: 4523857                  Holder ID: 4523857
>>
>>OPERATIONAL CONTACT                 OPERATIONAL CONTACT [On-Request]
>>Name: MyPrivacy Company Ltd.        OPOC ID: 44323578
>>Postal Address: My Street 123
>>City: My City
>>State/Region: My State
>>Country: My Country
>>Phone: [On-Request]
>>Fax: [On-Request]
>>Email: [On-Request]
>>
>>b) Commercial company Holder (opting the maximum allowable private
form)
>>
>>HOLDER CONTACT
>>Name: MyComm Company Ltd.
>>State/Region: My State
>>Country: My Country
>><perhaps more>
>>
>>OPERATIONAL CONTACT
>>Name: MyContact Company Ltd.
>>Postal Address: My Street 123
>>City: My City
>>State/Region: My State
>>Country: My Country
>>Phone: +121546589
>>Fax: +121546589
>>Email: [On-Request]
>>
>>Obviously, the more data specified in the Holder part the more
eligible
>>the com-company could be treated as.
>>
>>And, of course, I suppose the full Holder's and OPoC's contact data
are
>>stored somewhere at registrar.
>>
>>Dominik

  <http://i.msgtag.com/anmh/gkgjwxf/cbzaA/vztagzm/om/zltEksm.gif>