Formulation 1 is correct

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

The ICANN public comment forum offers a stunning contrast. A small group of 
organized big business lobbies, nearly all U.S.-based, are in favor of 
requiring individual domain name registrants to expose their personal contact 
data to the lawyers, and support Formulation 2. On the other hand, not a single 
individual registrant or consumer group has spoken in favor of Whois purpose 
Formulation 2. No technical managers of networks have told us that they need to 
have this broad definition of Whois purpose to manage, coordinate or protect 
the functioning of the Internet. All comments based on ICANN's actual mission, 
and actual law regarding the use of personal contact data, support Formulation 
1.
 
This is really a turning point for ICANN. Will its management of domain names 
be focused on technical coordination, as its mission statement and core values 
require? Or will it cave in to a narrow set of business interests and allow its 
mission to be warped by entities who want subsidized, unlimited, often 
unwarranted and (in many parts of the world) illegal access to the contact 
information exchanged between registrants and registrars? 
 
The connection between ICANN's mission and core values and Formulation 1 of the 
Whois purpose is very clear. Formulation 1 simply restricts ICANN to the 
minimal kinds of data collection and publication required to coordinate the 
Internet's system of unique identifiers. There are many, many other means of 
getting information about fraudulent and criminal users of the Internet. 
Indeed, anyone with real experience in tracking down malfeasors knows that IP 
address whois is far more important and useful than domain name whois. There is 
no reason for ICANN to require