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 In Historic Vote on WHOIS Purpose, Reformers Win by 2/3 Majority
    posted by Mueller on Wednesday April 12 2006, @08:28AM

    It has taken almost three years -- by some counts, more than 6 years -- but ICANN's domain name policy making organization has finally taken a stand on Whois and privacy. And the results were a decisive defeat for the copyright and trademark interests and the US government, and a stunning victory for advocates of the rights of individual domain name registrants.

    The GNSO Council has now adopted, by an impressive 2/3 majority (18-9), the following definition of Whois purpose:

    "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver."

    This narrow, technical definition of Whois was supported by the registries, registrars, the three Nomination Committee appointees, and the noncommercial users (NCUC) while the Business, Intellectual Property, and ISP constituencies were in the minority during the vote. The US government expressed its displeasure at the result. Will it pull a .xxx? Read more below.



    Let's back up a bit and ask Why is ICANN discussing the "purpose" of Whois and why does it matter?

    ICANN's current method of collecting and publishing the contact information of all domain name registrants blatantly violates national and international norms and laws regarding data protection. It allows ICANN to require registrars to collect potentially unlimited and sensitive contact information about their registrants and publish it on the web for anyone to use, for any purpose whatsoever. By attempting to define the purpose of Whois, ICANN was recognizing that both the data it collects about registrants and the amount of data it makes publicly available must be guided and restricted by a defined purpose. And that purpose must be directly related to ICANN's mission, which is defined in narrow and technical terms as a coordinator of Internet identifiers.

    Everyone knows this, yet the current system was allowed and encouraged to evolve into a free data mining resource for trademark and copyright lawyers.

    Will the US Govt. Interfere Again?

    This is a big test for the ICANN model. Because, just as with the .xxx top-level domain proposal, ICANN is edging closer to doing something that conflicts with official US policy. The US government, responding to intellectual property interests and a few short-sighted law enforcement officials who don't believe in following due process (which seems to include most people in the Bush administration), has been working aggresively within ICANN's GAC to keep all domain name registration data completely public. It has used both fair means and foul - putting together completely one-sided briefing sessions for the GAC and avoiding and suppressing any discussion of the privacy and legal issues.

    As the vote was held, Suzanne Sene, the US Commerce Department official who represents the US on the GAC, complained that the USG supports the expansive definition of WHOIS purpose. Claiming to speak for the GAC as a whole, Sene said that "GAC didn't know how close to a vote we were" and said she didn't think GNSO should vote so "soon." This is an absurd claim because:

    * the GNSO Task Forces involved in this process were formed almost three years ago;
    * the report containing the two opposing purpose formulations were put out for public comment three months ago;
    * a final report was sent to the Council March 15, prior to the Wellington meeting at the end of March.

    Many believed the vote would take place in Wellington. But that meeting, which the GAC representatives attended, was used to discuss and debrief on the issue without a vote. As it became clear that USG and other business interests would lose the vote, calls for delay were heard and a fake compromise proposal was issued. These delaying tactics were brushed aside, however, by a Council majority composed of registrars, registries and noncommercial public interest advocates, supported also by all three Council members appointed by the Nominating Committee.

    So the question now is, will the USG be able to push the GAC into "pulling a .xxx" -- i.e., claiming that because it was asleep and didn't follow the process and generally has no clue, it should be able to reverse or veto a policy decision? That kind of a reversal could be the straw that breaks the back of ICANN's legitimacy. This one could not be presented as a vote against porn, but as a vote against user rights and privacy.

     
      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
    · NCUC
    · ICANN
    · guided and restricted by a defined purpose
    · formed almost three years ago
    · the report containing the two opposing purpose formulations
    · domain name policy making organization
    · More Privacy stories
    · Also by Mueller
     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    In Historic Vote on WHOIS Purpose, Reformers Win by 2/3 Majority | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 7 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.
    Statutory authority?
    by KarlAuerbach on Wednesday April 12 2006, @12:49PM (#16682)
    User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
    I'd like the US delegation to ICANN's GAC to articulate, chapter and verse, with precision and depth, the legal basis, if any, on which it partipates in a policy-making role on a committee of a private corporation.

    In the US we pay our yearly taxes in three days. And I really don't want my government spending my tax money flying around the world attending meetings when it has no legal basis for doing so.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    It's not that the glass is half empty...
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Wednesday April 12 2006, @06:52PM (#16689)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    ...it's the wrong glass.

    Yes, within the terms of the ICANN universe this a rare, huge, important, win for sanity.

    But consider -- what is being advocated here is (as a definitional matter) nothing more than the status quo ante; the "purpose" of Whois voted by a 2/3 majority is exactly the one that the Internet's founders imagined.

    So let's not get too excited. The "progress" here is merely a step towards undoing harms done during the period of ICANN 'stewardship' over the root. Had ICANN been faithful to the original purpose of Whois, instead of caving to the IP lobby, we'd have had privacy protection for whois years ago. Instead, it's still a long way away -- if it ever materializes.

    I congratulate the participants in the GNSO for their Sitzfleisch, but it's two cheers at most.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Stupid decision
    by FatMixG on Thursday May 18 2006, @05:59AM (#16779)
    User #4296 Info
    This decision will result in increased costs to some business. Now subpoena's will be required to obtain the information for legitimate trademark owners, copyright owners and victims of libel in order to find out who is violating thier rights. Even domain disputes may become difficult. What's the big deal, if you form a corporation you usually have to provide some contact information which is publicly available in most states.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies 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