[gnso-acc-sgb] Focusing on access proposals

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I am deliberately restricting this post to sgb, the access group. 

>>> "Palmer Hamilton" <PalmerHamilton@xxxxxxxxxxx> 5/11/2007 2:44:00 PM
>>>
>For example, one of my banks had a case in which it had to 
>use local police in a foreign country to visit the physical address 
>of the website owner to get the site taken down.

Palmer: To make progress, we need to tie all these arguments to
specific access proposals. Otherwise we're just beating each other over
the head with the same arguments we've been making for years. 

The biggest problem I have with your argument here, is that its seems
to be based on the premise of the need for unlimited access to all Whois
data. It does not do anything to tell us who access should be restricted
to and how it should be restricted. 

And that is the conversation we are supposed to be having. 

A good aspect of your bank proposal was that it seemed to identify a
specific third party, governmentally chartered banks, which could be
easily certified as such. But it also seemed to imply that banks should
have the same unlimited access to all whois records as they do now, and
to put banks on the same par with LEAs.

But banks are not alone in being subject to internet abuse. In fact,
almost any industrial sector that deals with information could have
similar problems. And so could individuals for that matter. So just as
you make a "special" claim for banks, so could others make a special
claim for trademark owners, e-commerce companies, etc., etc. and since
they are subject to abuse as well there is no basis for a distinction.

If providing open access to Whois data only meant that it was used
exclusively for fighting abuses, we wouldn't be having this debate.
Everything would be simple. what you seem to be overlooking is that in
order to get access to pursue the .01% of Internet users or domains that
are problematic, you are by definition opening up the other 99.99% to
the data harvesting and unlimited use by anyone, for any purpose. 

Obviously, a complete open access solution is not a proportionate, just
or effective response to the problems you identify. This just seems so
obvious to me. 

We have to talk about restrictions on access. And we have to design
those restrictions in a way that optimially filters out the potential
for abuse of openness while efficiently providing access when it is
needed.  

As long as discussion proceeds on the presumption that open access to
whois data is a desirable and possible thing, we will make no progress.


Even those who favor the status quo must realize that there are growing
legal and business factors that render it nonviable.