<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [nc-whois] TR: [Views On] New WHOIS Database Rules
Antonio,
I did not assume the position of spokesperson (that certainly was *not*
my intention) - I was trying to provide helpful information to Mr. Keller
as other members of the now defunct Task Force are also free to do (and I
did not privately reply to Mr. Keller; rather I also sent it to
nc-whois), and I was notifying Mr. Keller that the WHOIS Task Force is
now defunct. Furthermore, Mr. Keller's email was not filed as a
comment - the Secretariat sent it the Task Force's mailing list.
Finally, I don't know what your definition of "defunct" is (and
why you would be so offended by my use of it); Webster's Dictionary
defines "defunct" as "no longer living, existing, or
functioning <the committee is now defunct>".
Mr. Keller - If I gave you the impression that I am the spokesperson for
the now defunct WHOIS Task Force, I apologize. It was not my
intention. I was a representative from the non-commercial
constituency on the WHOIS Task Force.
Bruce - My understanding of the WHOIS Task Force is that the final
report, the various issues reports and the RIO meeting were the Task
Force's last act. Can you please confirm or otherwise correct my
understanding that the WHOIS Task Force is now defunct?
Thanks,
Ruchika
At 11:55 AM 4/8/2003 -0300, Antonio Harris wrote:
Ruchika,
It is not clear whether or not you replied directly to
Bob Keller, as the message below is not addressed
to him. Nonetheless, I dont recall instances wherein
individual members of the Whois Task Force
took it upon themselves to reply to comments
received, and airing their views in that response.
I realize it has been difficult for you to accomodate to
working with a group, but even the "defunct" status with
which you qualify the Whois Task Force, does not
free the floor for you to assume the role of spokesman
(spokeswoman?) for Whois matters.
Since the original message was directed to the DNSO
Secretariat, I would like other opinions from the
"defunct"
Whois Task Force members on the appropriate response
to Bob Keller (for the record I agree with his views), if
any procedural action is in order. If Bob Keller received
Ruchika's reply, then I would propose we send a
response that thanks him for his contribution and encourages
him to stay tuned to further work on Privacy issues.
Tony Harris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruchika Agrawal" <agrawal@epic.org>
To: <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>; <nc-whois@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] TR: [Views On] New WHOIS Database Rules
>
>
> Dear Mr. Keller,
>
> While your opinion/perspective is appreciated, policy-development
for
WHOIS
> is not as simple as you've suggested below. ;) Please
see the Privacy
> Issues Report
<http://www.epic.org/privacy/whois/privacy_issues_report.pdf>
> submitted by the non-commercial constituency - it discusses other
types of
> domain name registrants and other issues that should be considered
in
> determining appropriate WHOIS policy.
>
> The WHOIS Task Force is now defunct.
>
> Regards,
> Ruchika
>
> At 09:17 AM 4/8/2003 +0200, DNSO SECRETARIAT wrote:
>
>
> >-----Message d'origine-----
> >De : Bob Keller
[mailto:bob@bobknet.com]
> >Envoye : mardi 8 avril 2003 01:09
> >A : secretariat@dnso.org
> >Objet : New WHOIS Database Rules
> >
> >
> >Ladies & Gentlemen,
> >
> >While I support the efforts to achieve a modicum of privacy in
WHOIS
> >lookups, I think it is also important to have "some"
basic and essential
> >information on Domain ownership available to the public.
For example, in
> >doing business on the Internet, I believe it's important to be
able to
look
> >up who owns a company web site, and where they are located --
for this
> >often has a bearing on whether I choose to do business with the
company
or
> >not.
> >
> >If the Domain Name is registered to a business, or if the domain
is
> >registered to an individual who is doing business on the
Internet, why
> >would any legitimate business or business owner NOT want ALL of
the
> >pertinent information relevant to the business to be available
to the
> >public? I would certainly be suspicious of any business
that would
> >not. Full disclosure of company information should
therefore be
mandatory
> >in these cases.
> >
> >However, if a domain is registered to an individual and the site
is being
> >used for purely for non-commercial purposes, I support
restricting the
> >available WHOIS ownership information to Name, City and State
only -- IF
> >the individual desires such privacy. It should be at
the individual's
> >option to have the balance of the domain registration
information
> >displayed. Technical contact information should be
displayed in its
> >entirety, since this is often needed to contact web site or
E-mail
> >administrators, in the event of malfunctions.
> >
> >Thank you for reviewing my comments.
> >
> >
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Bob Keller
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|