Re: [gnso-res-sga] Another issue for subgroup A from subgroupB list

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is a bright idea. It seems the whole subgroup was formed regarding an OPoC 
and not the ends that an OPoC would presumable address. I never heard the 
question "what is a good secure way to keep private data private and still 
allow for contacting a registrant?".
   
  However the suggestive comments regarding no one caring seem a little 
emotional and certainly obviously not true. On the third hand; there is still 
no registrant constituency and their representation seems to fall somewhat 
unnofficially on the At-large and the GA.
   
  Lest anyone think this off topic; rethink it. We have just been handed a 
document from non-involved third parties representing someone elses interests 
and the make up of the WG has been altered thereby. If that document is to have 
influence then a document emanating from a semiformal registrant group should 
also be included.
   
  We are leaving out one of the most essential elements of the charactar of the 
WG and that is the dotcommoner, a non-domain name holding individual user of 
the net. Some would call them consumers. But then again at the core aren't we 
all just that?
   
  Eric 

Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Hi all,

This brief exchange just exposes IMHO the typical trap the "all or nothing" 
approach is constantly putting us in while discussing Whois policies. As if 
digital tools did not allow us to find smart applications between "everything 
hidden" and "everything visible". 

I see no reason why whois records for individuals  (and therefore protected 
from public visibility) when displayed by the registrar for instance could not 
have a "send an email" button allowing anybody to contact the domain name 
holder on a direct private basis without knowing their address. This solves the 
problem Steve raises and does not go in the direction of the "give me your 
phone number" Milton fears. 

This is absolutely commonplace in myriads of social networking sites and more 
ancient applications. Are there any objections to such an idea or is it so 
obvious that we don't think of it any more ? Why don't we also try to allow 
services that are simple and useful and respect privacy ? 

As I mentioned in the conference calls, the wole discussion about the Opoc 
approach is so much oriented towards reining in the development of proxy 
services that we seem not to care about the individual registrant any more and 
just about the big market forces. 

Just my personal opinion. 

Best

Bertrand



  On 5/21/07, Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx > wrote:  >>> "Metalitz, Steven" 
< met@xxxxxxx> 5/21/2007 1:48 PM >>>
>This may be encompassed in a requirement for the OPOC to
>pass along all queries, but if not, perhaps this should
>be mentioned.

why?

If I want to buy your briefcase, Steve, because I saw it at an ICANN 
meeting should it be a matter of social policy that you be required to
give me your phone number?

Am I the only one who thinks that's absurd? We need to talk about
"requiring" things if and only if there is some significant social harm 
to third parties when people don't do the things required. I see no harm
and I see no legitimate third party interest in making purchase
inquiries of people who may or may not want them. And the same goes for 
a lot of other domain name inquiries.






-- 
____________________
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") 

       
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.