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)


     
    ICANN Meetings Irritations on the roadmap
    posted by jon on Tuesday June 24 2003, @05:13PM

    nhklein writes "Two controversial issues which were on the agenda of the Montreal ICANN meetings creating some irritation: the way of planning to create a country code support organization (ccNSO), and the discussions around the purpose and operation of WHOIS – the database of registrants of domains.

    Without going into the history of the ccTLDs withdrawing from their former role within the DNSO and moving towards a self organized structure, there is an obvious conflict revolving around the term “binding” that ICANN and the GAC want to see in defining the ccNSO. One European ccTLD manager put it bluntly: “We are not under the law of California!”



    ccTLD administrators work under the responsibility of the laws of their respective countries, and are responsible, first of all, to their local internet communities. Apart from elements that relate to the stability and interoperability of the Internet, everything else should, first of all, be considered to be local. “Binding” elements carry the notion of enforcement and are contrary to the Internet tradition of working by consensus. “Best Practices” which have developed within the ccTLD community will be the main tool for working towards extending common ground – what has been developed and has been accepted my many as useful should, through peer pressure, not through contractual enforcement, lead to better practice throughout the community.

    In spite of the fact that the planning towards the ccNSO had been accompanied by a special assistance group which included ICANN board members – it had been accepted that contractual relations between ccTLDs and ICANN would not be a condition for membership in the ccNSO – the differences in perception were obvious in an Open Meeting of the GAC, dealing also with ccNSO plans. One ccTLD administrator characterized the Bylaw draft related to the ccNSO still to be “autocratic” in its insistence to accept “binding policies” – while the framework and scope of such policies is not yet defined. The understanding of the ccNSO as a support organization for cooperation and coordination has also the support of some GAC members; ICANN board member statements still appealing to accept binding commitments seemed to fail to grasp the depth of the constraints and resentment of being under external rule.

    The WHOIS Workshop revealed similar gaps: there is no agreement about a common basis. The “Final Report of the GNSO Council's WHOIS Task Force Accuracy and Bulk Access” was questioned by Diana Alonso Blas, Data Protection, European Commission, as not taking European legal constraint on data privacy into account, and not dealing seriously with the question of the legitimate purpose of data collection and data sharing: “Not everything that is possible, useful, and desirable is also legal.” Data collection has to be kept to a minimum necessary, and its disclosure again should be kept to the minimal necessary purposes. Where additional data are collected, an opt-in system plus explanations of the purpose of additional data collected should be provided – opt-out provisions are less protective and therefore less appropriate.

    Intellectual Property and US Federal Trade Commission representatives claimed that their use of the WHOIS data serves foremost for consumer protection. To restrict the extent of data available and bulk accessibility would lessen consumer confidence in being protected from fraud and misuse. Convincing arguments why, for example, the phone numbers of registrants have to be made publicly accessible were not answered convincingly. After it was also explained that WHOIS data cannot be used for spamming, another panelist reported that he had just seen an offer to buy 30 million WHOIS data scooped from zone files for US$30 – instead of the usual US$10.000, the price for bulk access.

    The WHOIS discussion will continue into the second day of the ICANN Public Forum. Probably the business centered approach on the one hand, and the philosophy and legislation for the protection of personal data in “old Europe” will again be in the center of the debate. Nobody questions that there are certain minimal data requirements for the administration of registered domains, and that commercial entities doing business have to be clearly and publicly identifiable."

     
      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  
  • Government Advisory Committee
  • ICANN
  • nhklein
  • More on ICANN Meetings
  • Also by jon
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Irritations on the roadmap | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 5 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.
    Comment on nhklein
    by lsolum on Wednesday June 25 2003, @06:54AM (#11849)
    User #3416 Info | http://lsolum.blogspot.com/
    For an extended comment, go to: http://lsolum.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_lsolum_archi ve.html#105655106536426634 [blogspot.com] Lawrence Solum
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re:Not A Good Idea For .US Customers ...
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Tuesday June 24 2003, @06:59PM (#11844)
    User #2810 Info
    Do your homework, the EU is asking for more protection than you would get in .us WHOIS. What they're asking for wouldn't effect you anyway, though if you want less protection from scammers and spammers, that's your ghod given right.

    As for the article's statement:

    Nobody questions that there are certain minimal data requirements for the administration of registered domains
    I'm sorry, but I do question it, we aren't talking about critical nodes like we were in the old days, if my really-cool-website-name.com goes down there is minimal chance that it will cause any grief to anyone but myself. No-one else needs any WHOIS data other than my registrar, and if I'm a scammer/spammer via that domain then let law enforcement authorities, or even UDRP panelists, get it via some sort of court order. That's the same way unlisted telephone numbers work, I see no reason why an otherwise unlisted phone number is publicly accessible via WHOIS to not just IP lawyers and spammers but the whole world. Those pushing for a public open WHOIS are barking up the wrong tree, spammers/scammers falsify their data now so that they cannot be found, do they think it will be any different in the new world order? Surely even they're not that stupid. So why push so hard for something that only punishes the innocent? Oh, I guess that's the Amerikan ghod given right thing again. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • 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