RE: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2
- To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2
- From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:03:37 -0400
- Cc: whois-sc@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Roessler wrote:
On 2003-10-14 17:50:54 +1000, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Identifiers in other media typically attempt to balance identification
> and privacy concerns. For example a telephone customer may provide
> detailed address information to a telephone service provider, but may
> elect not to have this information displayed in a public whitepages
> directory. Note however that national laws often permit access to the
> complete information to groups such as law enforcement and emergency
> services personnel. [** INSERT Similarly, the ability of persons whose
> data is listed in various public registers to opt out of public
> disclosure of these items may be limited.]
Milton had a valid comment here, namely that it is not clear whether
WHOIS is a public register. I'd suggest to strike this insert, as
i it adds no value, but creates confusion.
I disagree with Thomas and Milton. WHOIS may not be a public register, but
it also is not a white pages directory. The point is that the "balance"
referred to allows people to opt out insome circumstances but not others.