pro Tonkin

["apascg" <apascg@xxxxxxxx>]

I would like to start with the suggestion Bruce Tonkin made-
"ICANN should have one definition with unanimous support".

The fact is that task force suggested two definitions.

The second one, the  one that says "the purpose of WHOIS is to help resolve a 
broader range of
technical, legal or other issues regarding registration or use of a domain 
name" is the one we find appropriate.

We are:
Antipiracy association of Serbia and Montenegro.

Copyright and media are our business, i.e. legal actions caused by unauthorized 
use of copyrighted work and harmful and illegal content distributed over 
Internet. 

We find the first definition task force proposed unacceptable, having in mind 
our  our experience and having in mind explanation task force published.

Cerf's confirmation that the original purpose of  WHOIS  was purely technical 
is not argument to keep it purely technical.
Almost no one was aware about  Internet in Serbia and Montenegro when WHOIS was 
shaped to serve strictly technical purposes.
Now, we have troubles with copyright infringement, with child pornography, 
right of privacy... all of them over Internet.

Since task force is deeply concerned with personal data protection, I would 
like to emphasize that we couldn't agree more.
But, let me give you the example.

The owner of a Solarium in Belgrade took a photos of the women who used his 
services.
Then he distributed it over Internet, using the address with national domain.
We don't have national WHOIS and it was not possible to react quickly and to 
protect women who had no idea that they would be used (abused) that way. (women 
are naked when they use Solarium). 
Though, please reconsider one of the arguments pro definition one: "In the 
light of the proportionality principle, it is necessary to look for less 
intrusive methods that would still serve the purpose of the Whois directories 
without having all data directly available on line to everybody". 
Why?
If someone places illegal of harmful content over the Internet i.e. available 
on-line to everybody- his name should be available to everybody.
The fact that WHOIS for gTLD exists is something that helps keeping things 
proportional. 
Otherwise, those who abuse Internet as technical tool to distribute the content 
are protected. 
What is the ground for that?
"Good old times" when WHOIS was shaped as purely technical?


Accepting the first definition proposed would mean that ICANN would establish 
unjustified exception.
Content protection should be technologically neutral.
That is what accountability is about.
Not about impression that Internet is new and specific media.
It is not new anymore.

It is not possible and it is not reasonable to narrow the purpose of   WHOIS.
It is against the facts.  

We thank you for the opportunity to comment task force's proposal.

On behalf of
Antipiracy Association of Serbia and Montenegro
Verica Vukovic