Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] GAC's position on Whois

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Suz and all sgb members,

  As I believe you know data access privacy legislation is being considered
in both houses of congress as is data retention revisions to existing
legislation.  With this in mind your remarks to same may be premature.
As I hope you also know is that financial data privacy laws have
an impact directly to part of your remarks as they apply to Whois
data.  Ergo I believe you erred is saying: " i would like to clarify for
the record that access to whois data in support of those activities is
legal in the united states.  in other words, there is no inconsistency
between public access to whois data and national laws."

Suzanne Sene wrote:

> hello everyone, and apologies for the somewhat tardy response to this 
> particular email exchange.  but as a gac member directly involved in the  
> detailed deliberations leading up to the adoption of the gac's whois 
> principles, it seems timely to share the usg perspective.
>
> as far as the linkage between the legitimate activities outlined in the gac 
> document and access to whois data in support of those activities, i would 
> like to clarify for the record that access to whois data in support of those 
> activities is legal in the united states.  in other words, there is no 
> inconsistency between public access to whois data and national laws.
>
> i would also like to comment on milton's interpretation that the gac 
> principles "deliberately did not say that access to the whois data as it now 
> exists should be retained" -- it would be equally correct to say that the 
> principles do not say that it should not.   the absence of a formal position 
> either way was quite deliberate, due to the differences in national policies, 
> laws and regulations that might apply.
>
> cheers, suz.
>
> Suzanne R. Sene
> Senior Policy Advisor
> NTIA/OIA
> 202-482-3167 (ph)
> 202-482-1865 (fax)
>
> >>> "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx> 5/14/2007 11:45 AM >>>
> On 5/14/07, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sir,
> >
>
> Bertrand is OK by the way ...:-)
>
> Your #3 makes perfect sense. Defining first a legitimate purpose is
> > paramount to concluding with legitimate users. I mostly am troubled by the
> > dual purpose problem. A bank may have a perfectly legitimate reason for
> > access but then it may easily corrupt that access for an iligitmate purpose.
> >
> >
>
> I suppose you mean : "it may abuse its access rights by using them for
> another, illegitimate purpose". This is why there may be an interest in
> "tailored access modes" for the different purposes.
>
> So once we decide "why" and then we decide "who", who does GAC think should
> > decide when.
> >
>
> "Who does GAC think should decide when" ? I can't speak for the GAC as a
> whole of course. For the moment, the "when" question is addressed in
> sub-group A. During its last conference call, an interesting approach
> emerged. It was proposed to distinguish between three functions for an OPOC
> :
> - relay : basically forward requests to the registrant
> - reveal : basically transmit or make available information about the
> registrant to a requesting party
> - remedy : basically taking concrete technical or administrative action upon
> request of a third party
>
> The "when" questions (ie the delays for action) could be different for each.
> This approach has still to be evaluated further.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
> Eric
> >
> > *Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > On 5/12/07, Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me correct what seems to be an increasingly common set of errors on
> > > interpreting the GAC principles. [snip]
> > >
> > > Fourth, the GAC statement on Whois deliberately did _not_ say that
> > > access to the whois data as it now exists should be retained. It
> > > enumerated several "legitimate activities" that use the whois data. That
> > > was compromise wording deliberately chosen to avoid saying what
> > > Christopher Gibson is saying below. In other words, in the GAC
> > > principles it is the activities that are legitimate, but not necessarily
> > > the open access to them that we have now.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1) As a GAC member directly involved in the last discussions on the GAC's
> > WHOIS principles, I fully confirm Milton's comment above, which is of the
> > highest importance to understand the GAC's document.
> >
> > The GAC's position is to recognize that there are legitimate activities
> > that have progressively used WHOIS data (because it happened to be
> > available) and at the same time that there is conflict between the present
> > international WHOIS regime for gTLDs and some national privacy laws (in
> > particular within the european union).
> >
> > It purposefully avoided to say that the use of WHOIS data for these
> > activities is "per se" legitimate and that WHOIS data should remain
> > accessible in the present form to allow them, precisely because of the legal
> > issues of compatibility with national laws.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, this is the very problem we are all trying to solve :
> > how to support legitimate activities and make sure that the WHOIS services
> > protect privacy.
> >
> > 2) I can also confirm that ccTLDs are a different issue, as their
> > management is handled by more national frameworks. National privacy laws are
> > therefore usually taken into account.
> >
> > 3) As a side note : the - non-exhaustive - list of "legitimate activities"
> > in the GAC principles illustrate the different "purposes" I have refered to
> > in the conference calls. Maybe this could be kept in mind while defining the
> > "legitimate third parties". Maybe we structure our work more around
> > legitimate needs, and try to define the corresponding legitimate parties and
> > technical modalities of access to specific sets of whois data ?
> >
> > And we must also be aware that WHOIS is not the only tool available. Maybe
> > other additional procedures could be chartered separately.
> >
> > 4) Finally, as a general comment, the WHOIS  regime for gTLDs is a
> > template issue for a recurring problem in terms of "international public
> > policy related to the Internet" : what principles, norms, rules and
> > decision-making procedures can be established to allow both a sufficiently
> > unified global regime and the respect of heterogeneous national
> > legislations.
> >
> > It is also neither surprising nor bad that within each country, LEAs and
> > Privacy authorities have different viewpoints. The purpose of public policy
> > is not to make one win against the other but precisely to see how both
> > legitimate concerns can be combined and conciliated in the best public
> > interest balance
> >
> > Hope the clarification helps us move forward.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bertrand
> >
> > --
> > ____________________
> > Bertrand de La Chapelle
> > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
> > Information Society
> > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
> > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> >
> > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
> > Exupéry
> > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827