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 -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/