Dear Patrick: Your intervention is curiously confusing since it begins by alleging a position to this ALAC that you later on appear to junk. In the last little while, I have 'held the pen' more often than not on ALAC WHOIS Statements. I believe the statements I have crafted faithfully reflect the consensus opinion of the At-Large. Furthermore, if you examine them closely, you will see a concession to privacy interests and our consistent recommendation for a policy position that acknowledge these. We agree to disagree respecting your view on privacy vis-a-vis WHOIS. Your position condemns ordinary users who are hurt by bad actors to do without the basic information to initiate redress of grievance. Undoubtedly WHOIS information to a class of better informed interlocutors could likely be fruitful. But information discrimination of the kind suggested against victims of dissolute behaviours adds insult to injury. Count me out. All aside, I am curious as to the identity of the individual allegedly of outsize influence "who have a business interest in an open-to-anyone WHOIS". If you should be taken seriously, this person is fingered as responsible for this reversal of fortune to your position. Clarity is an absolute requirement here. Or you might otherwise be fairly accused of a blood libel. And a demand for redress of grievance. Kind regards, - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Patrick Vande Walle < patrick@vande-walle.eu> wrote:
On 14/05/12 21:44, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Michele: Any other position would be both ahistorical and worse, demonstrate a touch of schizophrenia. A review of previous ALAC statements pertaining and our intervention on the RT initiative in particular should suffice.
Historically, going back to the interim ALAC, this group had a strong pro-privacy stance. 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.
Historically, the ALAC cared for all individuals, even those registering domain names. Now, the latter are told to move on to NCUC.
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. Now, I actually wish I can live long enough to see this implemented some way or another. We had more than 10 years to do that, and we didn't. There is no sign this is going to happen any time soon.
Speaking of regulating privacy providers, I do not understand why the review team did not suggest to allow registrars only to provide these privacy services as an integral part of their registration service. One would just need to update the RAA. Many registrars already provide this service. Others could join in. There would be no need to regulate yet another bunch of new players. If the registrars are serious in their privacy services, there might even be no need for proxy services at all.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ WHOIS-WG mailing list WHOIS-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg
WHOIS WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy