On 15/05/12 17:07, Carlton Samuels wrote:
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.
A fully open, public WHOIS condemns honest domain name registrants to be hurt by bad actors, like spammers. Being harassed on the phone, and see personal details exposed for all to see. I have no doubt experts in cybercrime would find the useful clues in the WHOIS. I am all in favour of giving them access to the information they need, as long as they clearly identify themselves, the work they do and be transparent who they work for, have a code of conduct, etc. However, I consider that exposing the private details of millions of honest individual domain name registrants to chase a few thousand criminals, who would fake their contact details anyway, is disproportionate from a human rights POV. Note also that other registries, mostly ccTLDs, have privacy policies. Yet, they do not have more issues with counterfeiting and spam than the main gTLDs have. What is disappointing is that ICANN (both the corporation and the community) does not want to question the model they use and learn from best practices developed elsewhere. Lastly, we should really distinguish between data collection and data display. The current ICANN WHOIS policy does not. Collecting private details is legitimate. Displaying them to everyone is not. I doubt there are many countries where one can consult the car registration database or obtain the details of an unlisted phone number without showing the right credentials to access that data. Why should the domain name database be any different ?
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".
This is more a gut feeling based on past posts that the result of an investigation. Frankly, I would have absolutely no issue if people made a living in fighting spam, counterfeit goods or generally investigate criminal activities. As long as this is transparent to the rest of the community. Indeed, I think Evan's suggestion to publish SOIs is a good starting point. I have not done so, because I am not in a leadership position, but I would have no issue to do it, if required. Maybe this should be extended to all members of the WGs. Patrick