Yessir. Was just discussing it on the monthly ALAC Call. Here's what I posted on the ALAC Adobe Connect chat: "Emily is a sensible person and she knows when 'she's getting tossed'!.......@Emily: I attended a lot of the public WHOIS RT and my views were even directly solicited. That Final Report was a monumental achievement in adept diplomacy and some very incisive work by Emily herself" FWIW, the ALAC endorsed the entire WHOIS Final Report and urged its adoption. The Statement went a wee bit further in recommending some next steps. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
Emily Taylor <http://news.dot-nxt.com/2013/01/16/deja-whois> "A dangerous sense of déjà vu" Thoughts from the review team chair.
Adam
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com
wrote:
Long before the WHOIS Final Report was published, the ALAC is on record for this - privacy/proxy - position. -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net
wrote:
This is pretty much where the Whois Final Report was heading. Work out who can use a privacy/proxy server (the difference between individuals and organisations was discussed), but then ensure access to all information to LEAs - for legitimate LEA reasons. And yes - again - once privacy protections are there (whatever they are called) insist on accuracy.
Holly
Personally, I like the middle ground of CIRA, the Canadian ccTLD that has different disclosure policies for individials and organizations. It allows individual registrants to hide criticlal parts of WHOIS for casual lookups, but does not offer that facility to organizations. In doing so, it still demands accurate WHOIS data. On 22/01/2013, at 7:58 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Agreed with about everything Bill said.
A domain name is not a requirement to speak anonymously on the internet.
This is the fatally flawed assumption in most privacy arguments, including Karl's.
ICANN long ago made the policy decision that Internet domains are property, not identity. As such they can (and should) be treated with the same requirements of ownership disclosure as other forms of intellectual property, which by and large are publicly searchable. Functionally (if not technically), WHOIS shouldn't have disclosure policies much different from TESS < http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4005:890zev.1.1 .
Such a mechanism may lead one to proxies, but those proxies must themselves provide accurate information that can ultimately, as required, ultimately give a trusted path back to the source.
Personally, I like the middle ground of CIRA, the Canadian ccTLD that has different disclosure policies for individials and organizations. It allows individual registrants to hide criticlal parts of WHOIS for casual lookups, but does not offer that facility to organizations. In doing so, it still demands accurate WHOIS data.
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org