ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

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

[alac] [fwd] [whois-sc] ALAC top 5 (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

  • To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [alac] [fwd] [whois-sc] ALAC top 5 (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)
  • From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:28:28 +0200

Here's the document I just sent out.
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/

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

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:25:10 +0200
Subject: [whois-sc] ALAC top 5
Mail-Followup-To: whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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 -----

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy