On 15 May 2012 00:38, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu> wrote:
Historically, going back to the interim ALAC, this group had a strong pro-privacy stance.
Oh, you mean the all-appointed, no-ALS-or-RALO ALAC? That's telling.
I noticed over the last 2 or 3 years that the statements evolved in the opposite direction, possibly under the influence of some who have a business interest in an open-to-anyone WHOIS.
Please offer evidence of ANY such business interests within At-Large and especially ALAC. Such baseless, gossip-level accusations are demeaning to the debate. Indeed I would suggest the opposite, that it is the influx of non-insider involvement in ALAC, thanks to the ALS-RALO structure, that has led to the shift in position. It is my perspective that the most assertive proponents for WHOIS accountability within At-Large are amongst its least conflicted. Historically, the ALAC cared for all individuals, even those registering
domain names. Now, the latter are told to move on to NCUC.
To use the same terminology, there is nobody "caring" for the interests of non-registrant end users except At-Large; registrants have other, more-direct channels into ICANN policy development. And it has only been recently that anyone here has acknowledged the reality that registrants and end users have different, sometimes competing interests. WHOIS accuracy and reliability is one of those realms in which the interests diverge significantly. In fact, look close enough and you'd find some movement in this final
report to the ALAC's pronounced view.
Indeed. At long last, the need for some privacy system is acknowledged, even going as suggesting to regulate privacy providers.
Exactly. ALAC has never been anti-privacy. But privacy and anonymity are not synonymous, and the provision of privacy is not properly delivered by obfuscating WHOIS information. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56