Re: [alac] DRAFT ALAC Statement on Whois

[Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@xxxxxx>]

thank you bret, for your good draft. but i do agree with vittorio. this 
is too short now to integrate in the report. we should be able to 
consult with the ALAC before.

But I think we all agree that privacy should be implemented and offered 
for free to all registrants as part of the general regulation of the 
DNS, rather than sold as an additional service for extra money.

I could add this to the report.

best
annette

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Bret Fausett ha scritto:
>
> > You all may have something in the works already, but while it was on my
> > mind, I took a few minutes this afternoon and drafted a possible 
> > statement
> > on whois for the ALAC. It's below as text and attached in Word. I 
> > won't be
> > available in the early morning hours in Marrakech, so I turn this 
> > over to
> > the group to take forward, revise, or drop. 
>
>
> Generally speaking, it is a good statement.
>
> I only have some concerns about the last point, possibly coming from 
> the well known philosophical difference about privacy between the US 
> (where privacy is a service that you buy) and most other countries 
> (where privacy is a human right that you enjoy by default). In 
> practice, I absolutely agree that we have to push for ICANN not to 
> restrict the "privacy services" that many registrars have started to 
> sell (even if, I would add, these privacy services should implement 
> themselves some sort of tiered access system, because at this point in 
> time, while registrants in non-privacy-enabled domains are too 
> accessible, I find registrants in privacy-enabled domains too opaque, 
> and I know directly of at least one case where someone, using a US 
> privacy protection registration system, has been running actual 
> criminal frauds in Italy) but I would state very clearly that privacy 
> should be implemented and offered for free to all registrants as part 
> of the general regulation of the DNS, rather than sold as an 
> additional service for extra money.
>
> However, I'm not sure whether we have time to finalize this statement 
> between now and Annette's presentation (two hours). I suspect this 
> might require extensive discussion, also given that we know that there 
> are members of the Committee who have other points of view (e.g. 
> John), and, if I were the Chair, I would not like to release any 
> statement on a matter before being sure that all known viewpoints have 
> at least been stated and discussed. But this is Annette's call.