Re: [ga] Whois

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

In addition to the OPoC and the Special Circumstances
proposals, two other proposals were submitted to the
WHOIS Task Force -- one authored by Avri Doria, Robin
Gross and Wendy Seltzer; the other proposal was mine.

My brief Natural Persons proposal:

"... a consensus has emerged that natural persons who
use their domains exclusively for non-commercial
activity have the right to and the expectation of
privacy with respect to the display of their contact
details within the WHOIS.

This proposal posits only one change to current WHOIS
policy; during the registration process, registrants
will declare that they are either:

A. Natural persons who will use their domains
exclusively for non-commercial activity; or,
B. Another type of registrant.

Those that affirm as type (A) registrants will not
have their postal address listed in the WHOIS
(currently required under section 3.3.1.6 of the
Registry-Registrar Accreditation Agreement), and
neither will they be required to list the postal
address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
(where available) fax number of the administrative
contact (currently required under section 3.3.1.8).

In the event that a registrant who has affirmed under
(A) engages in commercial activity, this proposal is
supplemented by the recommendation tendered by the
WHOIS Task Force chair that proposed:

"a mechanism that would allow Whois users to request
access to the removed data elements if the reason the
information was removed was no longer valid, or if the
domain was being used illegally or to harm the
security or stability of other Internet resources. A
third party would evaluate the request, and allow the
release of the data if the party making the request 
proved that one of these conditions had been met."

Unfortunately, the TF did not spend any length of time
evaluating any proposals other than those submitted by
the Task Force members.  Neither did they amend their
own proposals in light of extensive legitimate
criticisms put forth through the public comment
period.

Sadly, what we are looking at is the total breakdown
of the consensus process with constituent participants
inclined only to adopt intractable entrenched
positions.  

While this is not a healthy development, we should be
taking the attitude that when faced with no consensus
whatsoever, registries/registrars should not be bound
by global rules (such as those imposed in the RAA),
but rather should be able to set their own path
forward so that the market becomes the ultimate
arbiter.

regards,
Danny


--- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Interesting AP article.
>
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/technology/16941179.htm



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/