Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:17:39 +0100, you wrote:

>It is not necessary for the DNS itself but it is necessary for many
>operational reasons.

Such as?

><URL:http://www.centr.org/docs/statements/CENTR-Position-on-Whois.html>
>gives some good reasons,

The reasons given there are: "protection of intellectual property
rights, consumer protection issues, investigation of illegal
activities as well as daily routine business".

The first three ones are good, but once you publish the name of the
registrant, and perhaps a postal address, they have been satisfied.
There's no need for my e-mail or telephone number. If there is a
breach of law, you can go to the police - they should have
authenticated accounts to be able to check all details from the
database, as it happens for lots of other databases (by the way, EU
privacy laws explicitly don't apply to police investigations). If you
can't get action from the police because there's no breach of law,
then there's no reason why you should be allowed to privately act as a
law enforcement body (especially if it's "your" law, not "the" law).

Public access to my data for "daily routine business" (i.e. 50 million
US$ waiting for me in Nigeria) is something I should be free to decide
to allow or forbid.

>> Then, why should the IETF do it?
>
>At least one very good reason: although not perfect, IETF is *much*
>more democratic than ICANN. In the IETF, at-large participation (with
>all its limits and its problems) is a reality for many years.

But it is a participation limited to a very technical environment. If
this was enough, there would be no need for ICANN in the first place -
a smart technical person would be able to do all the job, as it was in
the pre-mass Internet era.

Now, we all know that ICANN has failed to build consensus around
itself, and that the openness of the new governance structure is
doubtful and yet to be proved. But this doesn't mean that the idea of
a global policy forum, where only issues that strictly need global
coordination are discussed, and where not just technical people are
involved, is bad. (And please note that I *am* a technical person :) )

And if I had to judge by the result, the CRISP specification seems
much more intellectual property oriented than the results of our own
task force. ICANN, even if slowly, is starting to build instruments
for real public participation, and perhaps even funding them. If you
want to go to the IETF as a user, you have to pay your trip.

>This is why I directed people from the former GA toward the CRISP
>woking group so they can provide useful input.

Is there still time, for example, to get amendments to that draft? Or
is it too late?

>> So the global policy level in this field (ICANN) 
>
>No, I say it again, ICANN is not in charge of defining global "whois"
>policies.

Oh well... I'm not advocating it, that's simply what ICANN says in its
new Bylaws:

>Section 1. MISSION
>
>The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: (...)
>
>3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.
-- 
vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html