ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2

  • To: Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx>, Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2
  • From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:14:18 -0400
  • Cc: whois-sc@xxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Milton seems to want a gate that swings only one way.  Minimal focuses on
what is least; optimal focuses on what is best.  That may be more or less
than we have now, or neither more nor less but different.  

Aren't we dealing with a spectrum here?  If Whois contained only one data
element -- say the fax number of the administrative contact -- a
registrant's privacy would be much more protected, but contactability would
be very low, though not zero.  If it contained much more contact data than
it does now, then leaving aside the issue of data accuracy -- which I don't
believe we should leave aside, though others clearly disagree -- then
contactability would be much higher, but there could be a negative impact on
the privacy of registrants.  This Task Force should seek to find the optimal
balance.  I support Bruce's formulation here.

Steve Metalitz  

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:06 AM
To: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: whois-sc@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2

>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/14/03 05:13AM >>>
>> b) What 
>> [**REPLACE is the minimum required information about 
>> ** WITH changes, if any, should be made in the data elements] 
>> about registrants that must be collected at the time of registration to
>> maintain adequate contact-ability?

>As this question is phrased now, the answer is "none"; the question
>does not provide useful and clear guidance for future policy-making.
>Answering the question that was originally asked would actually
>generate the kind of input that is needed for a rational policy
>decision.  Please undo this change.

I want to emphasize the importance of what Thomas is saying
here. We can have a real policy debate and discussion of what
data elements are required for contactability while maximizing
privacy. We cannot have such a decision or debate about 
the question as phrased above. Whatever one's policy position,
we need to have a real issue/question before us. 

>> 2. Conduct an analysis of the existing uses of the registrant data
>> elements currently captured as part of the domain name registration
>> process. Develop list of 
>> [** REPLACE minimal ** WITH optimal]
>>  required elements for contact-ability. 

>"optimal" is ill-defined in this context, since it is not clear
>*what* should actually be optimized.  Please keep the original
>wording which actually formulates a well-posed problem.

I agree. However, by using the word "minimal" the old wording was not 
intended to imply that we "will" decide data elements will be
eliminated or reduced, it is simply an attempt to define a 
benchmark. If other constituencies are uncomfortable with
the implications of that word (minimal) I am flexible about changing
it, but the focus of the TF on "what data elements are required"
(no more, no less) MUST be retained. 

>Or is this supposed to mean that "optimal contact-ability" should be
>the target of this task force?

Clearly, it is not. We must focus on the privacy/contactibility 
trade off. That is what this TF is about. Efforts to divert 
attention from that must cease.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>