RE: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail

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

Jeff,

ok, I should, perhaps, clarify some of my ideas

Basically, I agree with you upon the fact that the Preliminary Draft
doesn't address (or even mention) many significant details such as
various technical and legal aspects, particularly, those concerning law
enforcement, policy, national law requirements, etc. It also tends to
underestimate the importance of natural right for privacy, deliberately
or coincidentally.

We here, as I guess, broadly agree with keeping the privacy matters in
hands of registrants, although this is most likely not always
achievable, see the Dutch privacy law requirements enforcing data
publishing, as an example. I, and Chris, disagree with hiding the
identity of commercial companies, but this is still subject to further
discussion. Moreover, I, personally, also want my identity data to be
published and thus expose who actually is the owner of my domain name,
at least unless I'm harmed or otherwise attacked. However, I don't want
to directly expose my email address to spammers but I'm open to send it
to someone on request, on and on.

Well, if we've found the Draft insufficient in addressing these matters,
we could then generate an alternative list of priorities, opinions, and
proposals. I know, we've done so at certain level. But for me,
particularly, it's also important a technical model of new possible
whois mechanism reflecting the maximum of what we've talked about or, in
other words, whether various (national) law and legal requirements posed
on data accessibity/visibility are TECHNICALLY doable on uniform basis
at all. I've found it doable. So, at least for me, it opens a solid
basis any further discussion over that can grow up from and fluently
continue, being backed up by runnable technical system in mind. That's
what my proposal is all about. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another, completely different topic, is data accuracy. In every
thinkable technical whois system you can type 'Sleeping Beauty' as your
individual registrant name and get away with it without being restrained
UNLESS there exists another mechanism such as operational law
enforcement. How to achieve this on the whole is a complete mystery to
me. Currently, it doesn't seem any such enforcement is effectively
running unless it's initiated by third-parties such as cease and desist
letters, official complaints, etc. Therefore, for me, an additional
essential thing is what I call 'point of indication', a public place
where the internet users could send suspected links pointing to
commercial sites claiming to be non-commercial, the links with invalid
contact points, etc. I guess registrars will also have to obey similar
rules regardless of they want to or not. Even the existing Draft counts
on it, which is positive, at least in that it's being officially
considered. Another question, of course, is whether this motion
eventually succeeds.
Also keep in mind that hiding holder's contact data (we're calling for)
makes the enforcement more difficult, maybe another topic to discuss.

Hope, my opinion is now a bit more clear now...

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:58 PM
To: Dominik Filipp
Cc: icann whois; ga
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail

Dominik and all,

  I already have made several constructive suggestions one of which was
based on an earlier post by you on this very thread.  Maybe you missed
it.  In the case you did miss posts, let be know if you would like or
want the archived URL's for them, and I shall post same again publicly.

  I have read the Preliminary Draft, and as I have already pointed out,
along with a few others on the GA, it is fatally flawed, and I did
provide as to how and where it is flawed in some significant and factual
detail from

a legal aspect and a technical aspect as it directly relates to existing
and pending law/legislation.

  I have at the behest of many of our members, all of whom are
registrants, ask a number of questions which the Preliminary Draft does
not address, and remain unanswered.  I recognize they are very tough
questions, and raise some embarrassing history.  But it is the tough
questions that need and indeed must be answered and addressed adequately
if a sound and legal Whois policy is ever to be arrived at.

  I know it is abundantly clear and factual that no single server level
application can address the many and varied legal requirements of many
different countries, as well as most U.S. states legal requirements and
at the same time provide for privacy and security laws as well as
integrity of access use and data integrity in the Whois data base
itself...