[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Regarding accuracy issues and outcome of]

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Regarding accuracy issues and outcome of
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:48:01 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Glen De Saint Géry <glen@xxxxxxxxx>

Glen,

I have tried twice to post this message to the Whois TF 1-2-3 joint
mailing list, but for some unknown reason it never seems to arrive.
Could you please forward it to the list for me, and/or check why my
messages are not accepted by the list?

Thanks,

------- Messaggio inoltrato -------
On Mar, 8 Marzo 2005 12:12, Bruce Tonkin disse:
> Hello All,
>
> Given difficulties in making progress on the issue of improving the
> accuracy of contact information displayed in the WHOIS service, a
> breakfast meeting was held amongst interested individuals in Cape Town.
> I recall this meeting as being constructive, but it appears everyone
> thought someone else was taking notes.  I will ensure this doesn't
> happen again.
>
> As I understand it, this is the current status of discussion on
> accuracy.   All those on task force 3 should feel free to correct or
> improve my impressions.

I was an irregular member of TF3, so you will pardon me if, after the task
force stalled, I have reconsidered the accuracy issue in its entirety, and
I have concluded that we are discussing the wrong actions. (Please also
pardon me if I am addressing your email - in fact, this message is meant
for all of us.)

First of all, most accuracy problems are due to people actually willing to
keep their data up to date, but lacking education and simple processes to
do so - and yet this problem was never discussed. On the other hand,
people really willing to preserve the privacy of their data will not be
stopped by any kind of accuracy policy. I am also sure that if registrars
actually started to enforce any accuracy policy strictly, they would
possibly have to cancel half of their names - and I guess there would be
ordinary people rallying in the street outside ICANN's doors (or, perhaps,
just sueing their registrars). A good part of the contact data for my own
domain names (both in gTLDs and ccTLDs) is inaccurate - and even being an
active ICANN participant, in many cases I do not know of any practical way
to get them updated, as I bought them for a company for which I don't work
any more, or I bought them through a reseller that's not providing
adequate customer service, and so on.

So I am wondering whether we are trying to solve the actual problems, or
just to hijack the policy making process to further the agenda of one
specific constituency, with total disregard for the problems of the
others.

Especially, it is clear that there will never be accuracy if users are not
given the possibility to hide their personal information from the general
public, while disclosing it only to the registrar and the registry, which
are then required to disclose it to law enforcement when necessary. This
is not a personal opinion - it is required by law in Europe and now in
many (possibly most) other countries of the world.

So, may I please ask who is going to deal with modifying the Whois
requirements of the RAA so to make them compliant with international
privacy standards, and when? I really need a convincing reply to this
question.

The widespread feeling among user constituencies (but also among those
privacy authorities that I know directly) is that ICANN is actively
working to prevent privacy standards from being implemented in Whois.
Rather than doing so (may I remember that we even got a written request by
the Council of European Privacy Authorities two years ago?), we are
releasing policy proposals like #2, that at a first glance seems written
to provide ICANN with a way to escape the right of sovereign countries to
regulate the domain name business as they like.

I must confess that seen from the outside - be it an NGO which has never
been involved in ICANN before, or a senior governmental officer that is
only interested in the political part of our mandate - this process looks
like the proof that ICANN is unable to meet its mandate properly, and to
produce sound policy that keeps into account the needs of all stakeholders
and the global public interest. Putting forward recommendations that only
address accuracy but not privacy would just provide more evidence of this.

Finally, I am particularly and extremely concerned with your last note
about the possibility of establishing policy working groups outside of
ICANN. A group discussing Whois issues and comprised of, as you write,
"the domain name industry in collaboration with the intellectual property
and law enforcement community", would be perceived as an attempt to escape
dialogue with all other stakeholders, be them other governmental sectors
(law enforcement isn't the only thing governments do) or users and
non-commercial groups, and to impose policy unilaterally.

Even if we agreed that a specific issue is not part of ICANN's mission,
the principle on which ICANN is based - a cooperation between all
stakeholders in a private law framework - needs to be preserved with care.
I don't think that any attempt to create pure industry self-regulation
could be successful - I think it would only advance claims that the
Internet needs stricter control by governments, to prevent the industry of
a few developed countries from bending the net to its own specific
interests.

Thanks, and please rest assured that we are looking forward to
participating productively in the policy work of the GNSO, as we always
did in the past - but it's hard to do so if we feel that, after years, the
problems most important to us are left unaddressed.

Regards,
--
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...


--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org