Final ALAC Statement on Preliminary Issue Report on Thick Whois
The revised version of the statement based on comment submitted has been posted at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624. Aside from stylistic changes, the only two substantive changes were: - In sub-item 1, the intent of the statement needed to be clarified as suggested by Eduardo. - Sub-item 3 was added based on a comment I made early in the process with no one disputing it. Of the other suggestions, they generally were: - counter to community input in the earlier round of e-mail comments; - supported but did not change what was already in the draft statement; or - were issues related to the substantive discussion of whether the change from thin to thick should be made, the subject of the PDP if one should be started, but was not required in this vetting of the Preliminary Issue Report. If you have any concerns with this final statement, please contact me. Alan
No concerns, I fully support this as-is. Thanks, Alan. Is it worth referring to "privacy" concerns as being that of "personal privacy"? I haven't heard anyone, even the privacy advocates amongst us, suggesting that corporate bodies -- especially for-profit and governmental -- be allowed to hide themselves using a thick (or even thin) WHOIS. - Evan On 23 December 2011 20:18, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The revised version of the statement based on comment submitted has been posted at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624.
Aside from stylistic changes, the only two substantive changes were:
- In sub-item 1, the intent of the statement needed to be clarified as suggested by Eduardo. - Sub-item 3 was added based on a comment I made early in the process with no one disputing it.
Of the other suggestions, they generally were:
- counter to community input in the earlier round of e-mail comments; - supported but did not change what was already in the draft statement; or - were issues related to the substantive discussion of whether the change from thin to thick should be made, the subject of the PDP if one should be started, but was not required in this vetting of the Preliminary Issue Report.
If you have any concerns with this final statement, please contact me.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hi, There is a grey area. Some institutions, e.g shelters for abused women's and children's, may need the same privacy protection as individuals. The same could be said for advocacy groups in countries that don't accept a notion of advocacy. avri On 23 Dec 2011, at 22:57, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
No concerns, I fully support this as-is. Thanks, Alan.
Is it worth referring to "privacy" concerns as being that of "personal privacy"? I haven't heard anyone, even the privacy advocates amongst us, suggesting that corporate bodies -- especially for-profit and governmental -- be allowed to hide themselves using a thick (or even thin) WHOIS.
- Evan
On 23 December 2011 20:18, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The revised version of the statement based on comment submitted has been posted at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624.
Aside from stylistic changes, the only two substantive changes were:
- In sub-item 1, the intent of the statement needed to be clarified as suggested by Eduardo. - Sub-item 3 was added based on a comment I made early in the process with no one disputing it.
Of the other suggestions, they generally were:
- counter to community input in the earlier round of e-mail comments; - supported but did not change what was already in the draft statement; or - were issues related to the substantive discussion of whether the change from thin to thick should be made, the subject of the PDP if one should be started, but was not required in this vetting of the Preliminary Issue Report.
If you have any concerns with this final statement, please contact me.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hi Avri This is one of the issues discussed by the WHOIS Review team. As to eligibility for use, what was being discussed was: Eligibility for use of a privacy service: Should it be confined to a natural non-trading person only or include not-for-profits (e.g., women s refuges) and how to define/confine the parameters So the issue recognised and is being taken seriously Kind regards Holly Raiche h.raiche@internode.on.net On 24/12/2011, at 4:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
There is a grey area. Some institutions, e.g shelters for abused women's and children's, may need the same privacy protection as individuals. The same could be said for advocacy groups in countries that don't accept a notion of advocacy.
avri
On 23 Dec 2011, at 22:57, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
No concerns, I fully support this as-is. Thanks, Alan.
Is it worth referring to "privacy" concerns as being that of "personal privacy"? I haven't heard anyone, even the privacy advocates amongst us, suggesting that corporate bodies -- especially for-profit and governmental -- be allowed to hide themselves using a thick (or even thin) WHOIS.
- Evan
On 23 December 2011 20:18, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The revised version of the statement based on comment submitted has been posted at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624.
Aside from stylistic changes, the only two substantive changes were:
- In sub-item 1, the intent of the statement needed to be clarified as suggested by Eduardo. - Sub-item 3 was added based on a comment I made early in the process with no one disputing it.
Of the other suggestions, they generally were:
- counter to community input in the earlier round of e-mail comments; - supported but did not change what was already in the draft statement; or - were issues related to the substantive discussion of whether the change from thin to thick should be made, the subject of the PDP if one should be started, but was not required in this vetting of the Preliminary Issue Report.
If you have any concerns with this final statement, please contact me.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
On 24/12/2011, at 4:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
There is a grey area. Some institutions, e.g shelters for abused women's and children's, may need the same privacy protection as individuals. The same could be said for advocacy groups in countries that don't accept a notion of advocacy.
avri
This is indeed a grey area. Who is going to decide which organizations or groups should benefit from privacy and which should not ? Personally, I would stick to protecting individuals' privacy. Anyway, as others have pointed out, the issue is with display, not collection. Whether the WHOIS is thick or thin is mostly irrelevant when it comes to protecting the privacy of individuals. Patrick Vande Walle
On 23 Dec 2011, at 22:57, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
No concerns, I fully support this as-is. Thanks, Alan.
Is it worth referring to "privacy" concerns as being that of "personal privacy"? I haven't heard anyone, even the privacy advocates amongst us, suggesting that corporate bodies -- especially for-profit and governmental -- be allowed to hide themselves using a thick (or even thin) WHOIS.
- Evan
On 23 December 2011 20:18, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The revised version of the statement based on comment submitted has been posted at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624.
Aside from stylistic changes, the only two substantive changes were:
- In sub-item 1, the intent of the statement needed to be clarified as suggested by Eduardo. - Sub-item 3 was added based on a comment I made early in the process with no one disputing it.
Of the other suggestions, they generally were:
- counter to community input in the earlier round of e-mail comments; - supported but did not change what was already in the draft statement; or - were issues related to the substantive discussion of whether the change from thin to thick should be made, the subject of the PDP if one should be started, but was not required in this vetting of the Preliminary Issue Report.
If you have any concerns with this final statement, please contact me.
Alan
*I strongly share Patrick's concerns, and for the same reasons would place human rights and civil liberties above all else. In some parts of the world (one large Asian country, one large country in North America, etc.) these rights and liberties are put in jeopardy in the name of "decency" (some conveniently find the word "democracy" to be indecent) or "the fight against terrorism"): this is a regression in human development. Regards, Jean-Jacques. * 2011/12/28 Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu>
On 24/12/2011, at 4:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
There is a grey area. Some institutions, e.g shelters for abused women's and children's, may need the same privacy protection as individuals. The same could be said for advocacy groups in countries that don't accept a notion of advocacy.
avri
This is indeed a grey area. Who is going to decide which organizations or groups should benefit from privacy and which should not ? Personally, I would stick to protecting individuals' privacy.
Anyway, as others have pointed out, the issue is with display, not collection. Whether the WHOIS is thick or thin is mostly irrelevant when it comes to protecting the privacy of individuals.
Patrick Vande Walle
On 23 Dec 2011, at 22:57, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
No concerns, I fully support this as-is. Thanks, Alan.
Is it worth referring to "privacy" concerns as being that of "personal privacy"? I haven't heard anyone, even the privacy advocates amongst
us,
suggesting that corporate bodies -- especially for-profit and governmental -- be allowed to hide themselves using a thick (or even thin) WHOIS.
- Evan
On 23 December 2011 20:18, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The revised version of the statement based on comment submitted has been posted at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624.
Aside from stylistic changes, the only two substantive changes were:
- In sub-item 1, the intent of the statement needed to be clarified as suggested by Eduardo. - Sub-item 3 was added based on a comment I made early in the process with no one disputing it.
Of the other suggestions, they generally were:
- counter to community input in the earlier round of e-mail comments; - supported but did not change what was already in the draft statement; or - were issues related to the substantive discussion of whether the change from thin to thick should be made, the subject of the PDP if one should be started, but was not required in this vetting of the Preliminary Issue Report.
If you have any concerns with this final statement, please contact me.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29>
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
JJS -
Patrick Vande Walle