Re: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois Task Force

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all assembly members,

  Interesting you should mention and bring this up Chuck.  I am also
glad that you did as well, your exactly right IMHO.  It is also funny
or and odd coincidence as well as I along with two other IT
business folks, one in Tulsa Ok.,  and one in Washington DC,
are formulating a business to specialize in just this sort of thing.  >;)
In the early process of formulating this business, I found that
funding for instance was very easy to get as the demand
seems to be great.  We had the initial funding in just over
two weeks, and now have far more funds than we originally
thought we would need.  >;)

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Well said Karl. I strongly believe that until we deal with the issue of
> privacy, any solution to the perceived problems with Whois will just mask
> the real problems and will be very ineffective because users will find ways
> to protect their privacy in ways avoid new regulations.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@CaveBear.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:10 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois
> Task Force
>
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> I am slowly digesting your comments, which are, as usual, interesting and
> enlightening.
>
> Right now I only want to deal with one point:
>
> > ·     Some of the Whois Task Force's recommendations explicitly rely on
> changes
> > to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Per Louis Touton's
> > note of October 20, 2002, ICANN lacks the contractual authority to
> > unilaterally renegotiate this or other agreements.
>
> Let's not forget the value of comity.
>
> ICANN had no way of forcing Verisign/NSI into the major amendment of their
> contract with ICANN, but with the carrot that ICANN offered, the perpetual
> control of .com, Verisign was happy to be induced.
>
> What I'm saying is that perhaps there is no unilateral power, but there is
> value in future comfortable relations.
>
> At the risk of violating ICANN's policy of having comments in the form of
> messages tossed over a wall and disappearing from view, please pardon me
> if I take this opportunity to post my own comment on the report:
>
> >From karl@CaveBear.com Tue Oct 22 22:58:10 2002
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
> To: comments-whois@dnso.org
> Subject: Comment on Oct. 14 Interim report
>
> I see nothing in this interim report that answers the primary question why
> personally identifiable information must be published to the public at
> all.
>
> In other words, the report fails to answer what I believe must be the
> first question: Why is "whois" needed, and by whom?
>
> It is my sense that there is little public value in the existance of a
> publicly available "whois" database.
>
> There are, of course, small groups who find such a database useful and
> perhaps even valuable - groups such as marketeers (spammers) and trademark
> people who seek to redress perceived violations of their rights without
> resorting to the processes that nations have established for that purpose
> (i.e. the legal system.)
>
> However, the report fails to indicate that the needs of those groups is of
> sufficient weight to justify what amounts to a wholesale violation of
> privacy principles that amounts to nothing less than an anti-privacy tax
> on anyone who wishes to become visible on the internet through the
> mechanism of acquiring a domain name.
>
> The report fails to consider privacy protection mechanisms such as the
> following:
>
>   - Requirements that the data subjects (i.e. the people named in whois
>     records) have free and effective means to maintain the data.
>
>   - Requirements that those who examine the records must first identify
>     themselves, offer proof of that identity, and indicate working means
>     of contact, in particular a valid e-mail address.
>
>      + To ensure that the contact of the person making the inquiry is
>        valid, the response to the query should be returned by e-mail
>        rather than being made online.
>
>     + Special arrangements might be established for those in operational
>       roles (such as people in ISP network operating centers) to have
>       pre-arranged access credentials.
>
>   - That the time, date, and identity of every inquiry be recorded and
>     made available to the data subjects.
>
>   - Requirements that the registries and registrars make no use of the
>     information for any purpose except that for which it was gathered, the
>     maintainence of the registrant's domain name (including the issuance
>     of billing and status statements.)
>
>   - Requirements that registries and registrars take concrete steps ensure
>     that this data is protected by adequate and appropriate security
>     measures.
>
>                 --karl--
>
>
> --
> 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
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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