ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Addition to Privacy summary

  • To: "'Carlton Samuels'" <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Addition to Privacy summary
  • From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:40:43 -0400


Good points. I suggest though, to all, that we take the quickest path to move 
forward and go with the version that was distributed to the full WG last week. 
The wording is OK for me and there's a point where it's time to surrender 
control. We presumably will have time to chime in again if whacks are taken at 
our main text.

Off to Pittsburgh after a whole 14 hours at home. Back on the grid tonight.


From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:46 PM
To: Don Blumenthal
Subject: Re: [gnso-dataprotection-thickwhois] RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] 
Addition to Privacy summary

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Don Blumenthal 
<dblumenthal@xxxxxxx<mailto:dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
Therefore, given the number of existing and pending new gTLDs that use or will 
use a thick Whois model, the clear need for ICANN examination of data 
protection and privacy issues in the context of Whois data, and the likelihood 
that contracted party ability to address legal concerns will increase, the 
Working Group sees no need not to move ahead with future thick Whois registries 
based on data protection and privacy concerns.  A consistent approach to 
registry managem!
 ent has value.

+1, I agree.

A summary can be a double-edged sword for sure.  So if we finally decide on 
one, maybe we should include a few sentences that contextualize this issue 
within the framework of confidence in and the stability of the DNS.

The choices are stark; either improvements in the 'know your customer' and 
accountability regimes or further erosion of confidence with every other case 
of Internet-enabled fraud, theft and general misfeasance.

Then there is the risk that continuing on the same path raises the risk that 
governments will be compelled to act.  And you can expect the control regimes 
to be different, further undermining the concept of an open and global internet 
community to which we are committed.

BTW, governments, even the 
hand-on-heart-we-are-for-freedom-of-association-assembly-religion-<name any of 
such here> have no qualms in enacting laws and rules even more rank in crass 
intrusion in the private space, rubbishing personal privacy.  Oh sure, they 
justify this by invoking the collective security and that of the state.  
Examples are not hard to find.


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy