Thanks for the suggestion Jordyn. I think that minor wording change would
have a huge impact and would probably defeat the purpose of the proposal,
which is to move toward a more objective standard for determining the
circumstances under which an exception should be recognized to the rule
that accurate and complete contact information should be made available to
the public. People who don't have an objective basis for their concern,
but who simply feel that "Whois represents an invasion of their privacy,"
should probably be encouraged to use some other means of establishing an
online presence that does not involve registering a second level domain in a
gTLD. However, I will circulate this suggestion (and your other one) to
others involved in formulating this proposal and see what might be taken on
board.
Steve
------------------------------
*From:* Jordyn Buchanan [mailto:jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:39 AM
*To:* Metalitz, Steven
*Cc:* gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* Broader Opt-Out (was Re: [gnso-dow123] Alternative proposal re
Whois)
Hi Steve:
One possible change that I've been thinking about for your proposal is to
significantly broaden the circumstances under which one can opt out of
Whois. Thinking about some discussions I've had with individual domain
registrants, many of them do not have specific reasons to think that the
presence of their information might have bad consequences, but nonetheless
they feel that Whois represents an invasion of their privacy. As a result,
some of them resort to providing false information in order to provide some
sense of privacy.
Perhaps a reasonable way to accomodate this concern is to change the
criteria under which the "special circumstances" opt out is available. It
may be possible to accomplish just by replacing an OR for an AND in the
current proposal. Specifically, the paragraph that currently reads:
The "special circumstances" option would be open only to individual
registrants who will use the domain name for non-commercial purposes and who
can demonstrate that they have a reasonable basis for concern that public
access to data about themselves (e.g., name, address, e-mail address,
telephone number) that would otherwise be publicly displayed in Whois would
jeopardize a concrete and real interest in their personal safety or security
that cannot be protected other than by suppressing that public access.
Social service agency providers serving such individuals (e.g., abused
women's shelters) could also apply.
would change to:
The "special circumstances" option would be open only to individual
registrants who will use the domain name for non-commercial purposes OR
entities that can demonstrate that they have a reasonable basis for
concern that public access to data about themselves (e.g., name, address,
e-mail address, telephone number) that would otherwise be publicly displayed
in Whois would jeopardize a concrete and real interest in their personal
safety or security that cannot be protected other than by suppressing that
public access. Social service agency providers serving such individuals (
e.g., abused women's shelters) could also apply.
This change would allow individuals not using the domain for commercial
purposes to have a reasonable privacy option and would also extend.
Presumably, there would need to be some mechanism to deactivate the opt-out
if the use of the domain changed, or if the domain were used for bad
purposes (more on this idea soon).
Jordyn
On 10/30/06, Metalitz, Steven <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I had hoped to be able to improve the proposal with comments from other
> task force members, but since these do not seem to have materialized, I
> will aim to put this in final form this week.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:56 PM
> To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Alternative proposal re Whois
>
> Resent - not sure if it was sent/received last time around.
>
> Ross Rader wrote:
> > When do you expect this proposal to move to a more finished state?
> >
> > Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> >> Attached please find an alternative proposal on Whois which I hope
> >> the TF can consider. It is the result of discussions among members
> >> of the IPC and other constituencies and is a working draft, based
> >> largely on the model used for several years in the Dutch ccTLD, .NL.
>
> >> I would be glad to take a few minutes on today's call to present it
> >> and will ask that it be discussed in more detail on our next call. I
> >> look forward to your comments and suggestions and would note again
> >> that this is intended as a working draft, not a final product.
> >> Steve Metalitz
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>