ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] LAST CALL -- ALAC top 5; WHOIS

  • To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] LAST CALL -- ALAC top 5; WHOIS
  • From: Esther Dyson <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:47:55 -0400

I agree with your point below that we should not limit ourselves to the list provided (since this is such a key one): I think that we should reiterate the need to consider selective disclosures of the information - i.e. publicly vs. to police, and how "police" is defined... (1 and 3 are basically the same item).


At 09:07 AM 9/14/2003, Thomas Roessler wrote:
Please let me know any objections ASAP.

----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: ALAC top 5

The following whois issues are the ALAC's top five:

        * 1 -- data elements that are collected
        * 3 -- should registrants be allowed not to provide some data?
        * 4 -- pseudonymous registration
        * 5 -- registrars' disclosures to registrants
        * 7 -- consequences when registrant provides inaccurate data

We think that the chief issues of concern to individual Internet
users regarding WHOIS involve the mandatory collection of data not
operationally necessary, the forced disclosure to the public of that
data, and disclosure to them about the data protection/use policies
of the registrars to whom they give such data.

Because individuals use domain names to identify and locate
communications on the Internet, we think it is important that they
be able to do so without disclosing names or private information.

We also re-iterate our earlier recommendation that the GNSO look at
how WHOIS can be made auditable, by letting data users identify
themselves, and the purpose for which they are accessing WHOIS data;
in particular if the steering group comes to the conclusion that a
tiered access model should be considered.  We would have listed this
issue as one of our top 5, had it been identified in the staff
manager's report.

We further emphasize our earlier point that ICANN should not
strive for a one-size-doesnt-fit-any policy, but should leave local
questions on the local level, and develop a policy framework which
permits registrars to comply with applicable privacy legislation
through local or national "policy profiles."

Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · http://alac.info/

----- End forwarded message -----

Thomas Roessler                 <roessler (at) does-not-exist.org>

Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes! chairman, EDventure Holdings writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below) edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 1 (212) 924-8800 -- fax 1 (212) 924-0240 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) New York, NY 10011 USA http://www.edventure.com

see my new blog (finally!) at

Release 1.0 - the first good look
at technology that matters

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy