The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to
this list message:
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html>
Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being
discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it
impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or
accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The
intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent
adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the
contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement
and individuals to adopt.
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call,
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be
helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would
also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along
to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her
direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way,
the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information
when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an
overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal
reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an
individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of
law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals
choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that
view.
I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing
any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're
not participating directly in the WG.
--Wendy
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org
Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.htmlhttp://www.chillingeffects.org/
