Re: [alac] DRAFT ALAC Statement on Whois

[Jean Polly <mom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have personally had several occasions to need contact information from 
whois in order to make complaints about both trademark and copyright 
infringement. As a content provider, I think the whois information should 
remain open to all. On the other hand, as a domain name owner I am sure my 
email address has been harvested many times, added to spam lists, etc. I 
would just like to know that a human is looking me up, not a bot. Just put 
a capcha in it.

Thanks
JP

 At 04:28 AM 6/29/2006, Annette Muehlberg wrote:
> 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.