ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    Privacy No Consensus for Whois-Without-Privacy
    posted by michael on Monday February 17 2003, @10:26AM

    Ruchika Agrawal, a non-commercial constituency representative on the WHOIS Task Force, has written a dissenting opinion to the WHOIS Task Force draft final report on "Accuracy and Bulk Access" that punted on privacy. This means it clearly is not a consensus report. Will ICANN spin it as one anyway?



    Here's the text of the dissent:
    Dear Co-Members of the WHOIS Task Force:

    As a non-commercial constituency representative on the WHOIS Task Force, I am writing to express my dissenting opinion on the Task Force’s accuracy recommendation.

    While I do not oppose accurate data per se, I do oppose the Task Force’s recommendation to enforce accuracy of WHOIS information when the Task Force has failed to adequately address privacy issues.  I also believe the Task Force final report fails to reflect several suggestions made by members to address this specific problem.  For this reason, the report cannot fairly be described as a “consensus” position.

    The Task Force failed to recommend appropriate privacy safeguards for domain name registrants with reasonable and legitimate expectations of privacy and the Task Force failed to assess the misuses of WHOIS data.  The very existence of inaccurate data suggests that there are domain name registrants who do care to safeguard their privacy and prevent the misuse of their personally identifiable information.  Furthermore, a number of comments submitted to the WHOIS Task Force’s recommendations report raise privacy and data misuse issues that the WHOIS Task Force has effectively ignored: A number of privacy and data misuse issues have been expressed by way of comments to the Task Force’s interim and final reports as early as July 2002.  It is not clear what criteria the WHOIS Task Force is applying to suggest that accuracy of WHOIS data supersedes legitimate privacy interests. 

    Moreover, the non-commercial constituency representatives expressed the need to address privacy protection: It is not clear why these points, which are central to the development of a sensible WHOIS policy, are being put off.  Proposing a “privacy issues report” is unresponsive.  Postponing privacy issues while enforcing accuracy also presents the unacceptable risk of privacy issues being dismissed or resolved unsatisfactorily (see http://gnso.icann.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/msg00004.html and http://gnso.icann.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/msg00006.html).  Minimally, enforcement of accuracy and insurance of privacy safeguards should be concurrent. 

    The WHOIS Task Force is well aware of these issues, but has chosen not to address them. For this reason, I ask that my dissent be incorporated in the Final Report as a Minority Report. 

    Sincerely,
    Ruchika Agrawal
    Non-Commercial Constituency
    WHOIS Task Force

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • European Union
  • ICANNWatch.org
  • ICANN
  • text of the dissent
  • http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dn socomments/comments-whois/Arc0 2/msg00005.html
  • http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsoc omments/comments-whois/Arc02/m sg00012.html
  • http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dn socomments/comments-whois/Arc0 2/msg00022.html
  • http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dn socomments/comments-whois/Arc0 2/msg00023.html
  • http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dn socomments/comments-whois/Arc0 2/msg00025.html
  • http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dn socomments/comments-whois/Arc0 2/msg00027.html
  • http://www.dnso.org/clubpub lic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00368.ht ml
  • http://www.dnso.org/clubpub lic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00410.ht ml
  • http://www.dnso.org/clubpub lic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00507.ht ml
  • http://www.dnso.org/clubpub lic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00553.ht ml
  • http://www.dnso.org/clubpub lic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00800.ht ml
  • dissenting opinion
  • draft final report on "Accuracy and Bulk Access"
  • punted on privacy
  • consensus
  • More on Privacy
  • Also by michael
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    No Consensus for Whois-Without-Privacy | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 1 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Well, at least it's in the record...
    by ldg on Monday February 17 2003, @04:54PM (#11176)
    User #2935 Info | http://example.com/
    Not that it will make much difference to ICANN.

    As long as there is no assurance of privacy or limitations to bulk access, registrants concerned with the publication of their personal identifiable information will continue to provide inaccurate information. As Karl Auerbach put it, "Megan's law in reverse" is what we have. I wonder how many lives must be damaged before ICANN realizes that privacy must be protected. Will it take a class action? If so, I'd subscribe.

    With the proliferation of SOHO's as well as those who are concerned with free speech issues, the need for privacy becomes even more urgent. There is no legitimate reason to violate privacy in a public database. In addition, even tech contact information should be limited to an email address that cannot be mined (format: [techcontact domain TLD]. Those with legitimate need for any information other than tech email and nameservers should have to prove that need (under specified guidelines) and obtain information by request to the registrar based on that registrar's legal jurisdiction. Other than law enforcement for criminal activity and court orders, what legitimate need is there? I, for one, am tired of being spammed and harrassed by phone at all hours of the day and night.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com