<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [nc-whois] TR: [Views On] New WHOIS Database Rules
Ruchika,
I beleive Marylin has already clarified the matter
of
the "defunctness" of the Whois Task Force.
Your
announcement would appear to be
premature?
I was not offended, I was definitely
uncomfortable
with your unilateral action, particularly the
fact
that someone sent a contribution on Privacy
and
he was greeted with a flattening response,
that
included a statement that is simply untrue
as
to the longevity of the Task Force.
Thank you for your quote from Webster's
dictionary.
Perhaps, in view of the almost 24 months a
group
of people dedicated to Whois (without any
financial
retribution), it might be more civil to state,
at the appropriate time, that "the Whois
Task Force
has concluded it's work and has been
dissolved".
Tony Harris
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 12:24
PM
Subject: 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
>>>
|