Hi Philip, While it is very much appreciated that effort is being made to address the privacy and other concerns about the over-broad Formulation #2 of the WHOIS purpose definition, I don't see how this reformulation is any better. What purposes would have been included in the original Formulation#2, but are now excluded due to its rewording? It seems to me that just about every purpose under the sun falls within the scope of re-Formulation#2. Every issue about the use of a domain name relates to either the "networking use", or "technical use", or "legal use" of a domain name. So taking out the phrase "or other uses" makes no difference in practice. ** Are there any concrete examples of types of uses that are no longer within the ambit of #2, but previously did fall within the admittedly over-broad definition of the original #2? ** Also, the Formulation#2's stated purpose of "legal use" is clearly outside of the scope of ICANN's purely technical mission. Thank you, Robin Philip Sheppard wrote:
Council, In preparation for the discussion and possible vote on WHOIS purpose please find attached a proposed compromise definition. The background to this compromise is as follows: - It is not intended to be a new formulation 2 but a new approach and thus an amendment to the proposed vote. - The new wording seeks to accommodate numerous concerns expressed at the last Council meeting and in the recent WG paper: 1. it speaks not of the purpose of "WHOIS" but the purpose for which the "data is collected". This reflects the concerns rightly raised by the non-commercial constituency in that previous definitions were not compliant with data protection laws such as the EU data protection directive. The intent here is that the scope should be no wider than the scope of such laws.
2. The new wording removes the overly wide phrase "or other uses" phrase in a previous definition. In this way it stays compliant also with data protection laws in that purpose has to be explicit.
3. The definition is silent on questions of subsequent access to data or data publication. This issue was raised by the Registrars in that the purpose of WHOIS was being defined in the context of the current manifestation of WHOIS with its current open access and publication. This definition is intended not to make ANY assumption about access.
4. In the same way this definition is not intended to override any subsequent debate on privacy.
I hope that by addressing the concerns above, we can get the full support of Council to a definition describing the purposes of data collection and one that is not blind to the use that such data is being put today in pursuit of consumer protection and measures to prevent crime. To pursue a vote that would divide Council between the previous formulations 1 and 2 would not move us forward. I hope this third way ( excuse me sounding like UK prime minister Tony Blair!) will be a positive way forward for Council and one that will also get the full support of the GAC.
Philip