RE: [gnso-whois-wg] clarification of GAC relevance to GNSO WGs

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the correction, Bertrand. I should have known better: it is, as you 
say, "activities" (e.g., self-policing of trademarks) that are legitimate and 
not necessarily the use of Whois data for them. This important but subtle 
distinction often gets overlooked. 

________________________________

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:51 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Dan Krimm; gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] clarification of GAC relevance to GNSO WGs


Dear all, dear Milton,

Once again, it is important that people understand the exact meaning of the 
formulation in the GAC whois principles. I already posted it but it's worth 
reiterating for those who did not see it. 

What the GAC principles say is :
"As the Internet has evolved, Whois data is now used in support of other 
legitimate activities, including ... [add list here]" And there is a footnote 
to indicate that the legitimacy is in respect to national law. 

The formulation was very, very carefully worded because it was a critical 
point. It is the activities that are qualified as legitimate, not the use of 
whois data for them. It does not say "legitimate uses of whois data", precisely 
because in many cases the accessibility of the data is in contradiction with 
national privacy laws. This is the core of the problem. 

At the same time, it is true that the (non-inclusive) list in the GAC 
principles can be used as a guideline to identify what I have often labelled in 
conference calls "purposes" . These are the activities that need some 
information and the Whois services are one of the many tools that they can use, 
provided the Whois services are compliant with national laws. 

Best

Bertrand





On 7/26/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote: 



        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Krimm 
        Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:02 AM
        
        >In today's call we had a comment from the GAC
        >referring to a listing or enumeration of public
        >interests, or something to that effect, when
        >discussing Section 1 of our report (Objective). 
        
        Actually the GAC WHOIS principles provide a list of what the GAC members
        thought to be "legitimate uses" of Whois data. It did not say that all
        of them were "public interest" uses. Furthermore, the same section 
which 
        lists these uses recognizes "the misuse of Whois data" and potential
        conflicts with national law.
        
        The simple fact is that the GAC principles tell us nothing about how to
        reconcile those two things. That's our job. 
        
        Furthermore, if you take a careful look at those "legitimate uses" you
        can see that about half of them could occur with OPoC-shielding; e.g.,
        checking for the availability of a name.
        
        
        




-- 
____________________
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")