Yes, I thought I had signed up for the WG, but this is the first I've heard of anything regarding progress.

However, since I just opened the doc and it's 23 pages, it'll have to wait until I get some time.

But, I do have some input:

1) First and foremost, I'm getting irritated at everyone using phishing as the antagonist to every situation.  I've heard it used incorrectly for domain tasting and I've heard it used incorrectly for the reason for full disclosure in whois.  I'd like to think we've all got more intellect than to keep pulling this subject out of thin air.

2) I don't believe that 'law enforcement' should have complete and unlimited access at all times to whois if there is a privacy provision.  If there is a privacy provision invoked, then they should have to go through appropriate channels to gain this information.  Point of reason from an American perspective: law enforcement used to have to practice due diligence in acting on search warrants prior to the nazi takeover.  Now that level of due diligence has been reduced to the level of ordering a pizza it has caused more problems than it has solved and contributed to the erosion of American ideals while doing little for 'real' law enforcement.  Imagine this lack of due diligence on a global scale.  oh, please just wait to see what trouble this can cause.

sidenote: the criminals aren't always on the inside of the jailcell.

3) Regarding #2, I think there should be a privacy provision of some type.  The whois is similar to a phonebook, and if someone wants their info unlisted I think we should afford that option.  Not just a facade option that exists today, but a real option.

4) For situations that require technical need for use of whois, the data should be available and unmasked.  Namely, for technical and financial purposes, that data should be available to the designated parties but not available to others not having the need to know.  In my opinion, the issue is what data should go where and available to whom.

5) The current format of whois policies are outdated and should be thoroughly revised.

6) There seems to be a complete lack of responsibility on part of service providers (registrars, et  al) in keeping their fiduciary responsibility of whois data.  Or, for that matter any records that could be reasonably queried without a court order.

7) I don't think the whois should be a 'public' database.

8)  As usual, I don't think the policy development of such issues should be rushed along or done haphazardly.  Rather, it should be done with thoughtfulness and concern.

Randy Glass
A@L



On 7/10/07, Michael Maranda <mmaranda@afcn.org> wrote:
Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting?  I had no knowledge as to whether persons not on the committee could join the call, and only learned that possibility after call had commenced. 


On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de> wrote:
Dear Wendy,

thank you for the update.
I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the
Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much
welcome your advice.

Best
Annette


Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
> 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
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org



--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
President, Association For Community Networking

Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance:   http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org



--
-------------------------
AmericaAtLarge.org
RJPacific.com
DDMF.org