Re: [alac] LAST CALL -- ALAC top 5; WHOIS
I have now posted the document as drafted, i.e., focused on data
collection, in order to make the point that this also needs to be
looked at.
Note that it's basically certain that the GNSO will look at tiered
access models, so our not mentioning it doesn't matter too much.
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
On 2003-09-14 09:47:55 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
> From: Esther Dyson <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: alac@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:47:55 -0400
> Subject: Re: [alac] LAST CALL -- ALAC top 5; WHOIS
> X-Spam-Level:
>
> 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).
>
> Esther
>
> 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
> http://release4.blogspot.com/
>
> Release 1.0 - the first good look
> at technology that matters
>
>