Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 10:44:44AM +0100,
 Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org> wrote 
 a message of 75 lines which said:

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

Let's expand a typical "daily routine business". You receive a spam
which advertises an email address in hotsex@coldmail.com. You want to
complain to the people at coldmail.com. It is very convenient to find
an email address.

Or the email to myfriend@somewhere.bj bounces and you see that all the
nameservers of somewhere.bj are broken. It is very convenient to find
either an email address in another domain or a fax number to warn them.

(Do note that I gave examples where you know the domain. If you know
the IP address, such as when you are attacked by
Nimda/CodeRed/Microsoft-worm-of-the-day, you need also a whois
entry. They are provided by the RIRs which, unfortunately, are not the
object of the same public scrutiny as the ICANN.)

> 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. 

I disagree.

> breach of law, you can go to the police - they should have

Do note that, of the typical situations I gave as example, only one is
a (possible) breach of the law.

> >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

Before ICANN, the root of the DNS was not managed by the IETF but by
another private US company.

> Now, we all know that ICANN has failed to build consensus around
> itself,

This is the understatement of the century :-)

> 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 :) )

I do not see the issue as "technical persons who know better against
the ignorant mob of dummies". The good thing about IETF is not that it
is technical, it is that it tries to be democratic.

I agree that it would be nice to have a global (non technical) policy
body. But it does not exist. And ICANN does not show the slightest
sign of being able to be that body.

(Do note that I wrote "body" and not "forum": we have many forums,
such as this former GA list, icannwatch.org, etc. But forums are
places to talk, not to take decisions.)

> 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.

I wasn't aware that ICANN has a budget for trips to Rio de Janeiro. I
will not apply, we have enough money in Europe, but does it mean that
people from Asia or Africa will be able to receive financial help for
the trip? On what grounds will the applications be accepted/refused?

> >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?

I believe there is time. Thomas Roessler's proposal about
internationalization seems to have been accepted quite easily.
 

--
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