WHOIS Report Punts on Privacy
Date: Thursday February 06 2003, @04:22AM
Topic: Privacy

Something odd is happening with respect to the Whois Task Force: user interest are being ignored while everyone else's interests are being catered to. No, wait, that's not odd -- it's business as usual for ICANN.

It seems that the Whois Task Force decided to issue a final report on "Accuracy and Bulk Access" for a 10-day comment period. Oddly, rather than attempt to deal with privacy issues, or even make recommendations consistent with privacy concerns, the Task Force has adopted the strategy of deciding other things first, and relegating privacy to a separate "Privacy Issues Report". The game plan presumably is to announce consensus on the privacy-free policy, then later sorrowfully find an absence of consensus on the privacy issue.

Both Kathy Kleiman and Danny Younger are asking the questions that need asking. Bet you there's an ICANN 'stakeholder' 'consensus' anyway. Or, maybe this is the moment where the gloves come off. After all, under the new ICANN By-laws, the Board doesn't need to pretend to have a consensus any more to make policy. It can just do whatever it likes.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
WHOIS Report Punts on Privacy | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 13 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
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.
i wouldn't be too sure about consensus
by tbyfield (reversethis-{moc.xinap} {ta} {dleifybt}) on Thursday February 06 2003, @07:39AM (#11098)
User #44 Info
certainly, the general drift within ICANN over the years has been to treat whois data as an enforcement tool, so there's clearly support, as you suggest, to punt in a way that allows it continue to 'evolve' in that direction. otoh, verizon was one of the members of the hilarious whois not-really-a-committee [tbtf.com], and they've been remarkably aggressive in resisting a court order to hand over info about a p2p user on their network. granted, that's quite different from whois data; but, still, it seems as though there should be some structural resistance in these areas, if only because the cost of compliance and creep could be high for carriers. so it may just be that the punt stems from a very real lack of consensus among the 'stakeholders' in their current constellation; the task, then, will be for ICANN to engineer a different constellation with much less resistance.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
As it always was
by phoffman@proper.com on Thursday February 06 2003, @09:39AM (#11099)
User #2063 Info
"...certainly, the general drift within ICANN over the years has been to treat whois data as an enforcement tool..."

That is what whois was being used for long before ICANN came into existence. When something related to a particular site was hurting the Internet, you used whois to find someone to contact. It worked incredibly well, and continues to work well for this.

Why should whois data be private? In almost on country in the world is business identification data kept private. Further, if you want privacy from whois searchers, you can either lie or honestly list someone else who will hold your data private from snoopers.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]

This article comes from ICANNWatch

The URL for this story is: