Mawaki,
Here in the US and was registering under gTLDs.
I see, so if your country of residence doesnt protect your privacy, you want to impose it on the generic domain name space, which is extra-territorial (a definition I actually coined from someone in your own constituency BTW).
But I don't see what is the equivalent of IACNN (a private corporation) by whom the registrar will say they are _required_ to publish your personal data. Besides, having an electronic database publicly available, is not the same as having the data published in hard copy even if the data is stored in an electronic form (and governed with privacy/data protection guidelines, e.g. in a country like France where I lived several years), but I guess things might vary from a country to another...
You are entitled to your opinion of course. However there would appear to be a worldwide tendency for electronic databases to be replacing hard copy directories, and thus some similarities might be detected?
Well, in my case, it turns out (as I said some time ago) that I used to have a very small number of spam on that account, the increase has been dramatic short after registering a DN related to that account, while at the same time I started getting calls about web site hosting (am also addressing here Bruce's remark about this). Eventually, I asked the last person who called me where she got my contacts from, she said they were given a list and she didn't know, but kindly offered that if I wish she could remove my phone contact from the list, and they will just send me emails about their services, which I accepted. Of course I wouldn't infer as a scientific truth (I presented this as a story, and I think it's worth anything you can read in newspaper) that that necessarily causes this; for this is just one occurrence, and it might be, or not, a coincidence. But in the mean time and at my micro-level, I can only say chances are...
Anyway, even if you have evidence that my experience is not generalizable (which does not necessary mean the spam increase isn't related to the Whois being public, in my specific case), the whole argument remains.
So you would have been better off paying the registrar for not publishing your data ? Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango@yahoo.com> To: "Anthony Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [council] Regarding data collected and the purpose of collecting data
Anthony,
--- Anthony Harris <harris@cabase.org.ar> wrote:
Mawaki,
1) In what country were you living when you registered a domain name? Was there no country code domain you could resort to, and thus be protected by the national legal privacy framework?
Here in the US and was registering under gTLDs.
2) I beleive that to be unlisted in a phone book, there is normally a charge?
But I don't see what is the equivalent of IACNN (a private corporation) by whom the registrar will say they are _required_ to publish your personal data. Besides, having an electronic database publicly available, is not the same as having the data published in hard copy even if the data is stored in an electronic form (and governed with privacy/data protection guidelines, e.g. in a country like France where I lived several years), but I guess things might vary from a country to another...
3) I get 300 spams a day, mostly from Asia, and I dont have a domain name of any sort, nor am I listed in any whois database.
Well, in my case, it turns out (as I said some time ago) that I used to have a very small number of spam on that account, the increase has been dramatic short after registering a DN related to that account, while at the same time I started getting calls about web site hosting (am also addressing here Bruce's remark about this). Eventually, I asked the last person who called me where she got my contacts from, she said they were given a list and she didn't know, but kindly offered that if I wish she could remove my phone contact from the list, and they will just send me emails about their services, which I accepted. Of course I wouldn't infer as a scientific truth (I presented this as a story, and I think it's worth anything you can read in newspaper) that that necessarily causes this; for this is just one occurrence, and it might be, or not, a coincidence. But in the mean time and at my micro-level, I can only say chances are...
Anyway, even if you have evidence that my experience is not generalizable (which does not necessary mean the spam increase isn't related to the Whois being public, in my specific case), the whole argument remains.
Mawaki
4) Your repeated references to the problem of access to data have been exhaustively discussed within the Whois task force, actually since mid 2001.... Tiered access for entitled parties is of course a natural solution. (And we did think of it quite a while back!) 5. The current discussion is constricted to defining the purpose of Whois, access to data I beleive is a subject for future discussions?
Tony Harris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango@yahoo.com> To: "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [council] Regarding data collected and the purpose of collecting data
Just a story, and a last reflection on this -
The last time I registered a domain name, I was informed that to comply with the ICANN requirements, the registrar will display my personal data in the WHOIS database which is public. However, they offered that for additional fee (I forgot the amount, but it was higher that the registration fee itself), they could keep my data private to avoid the hassle (spam, etc.) related to the fact that anyone would access my personal data, otherwise. And reading more, I realized the fee was not collected per registrant, but per name registered (even with the same registrar, for each time one registers, one must provide one's personal data through the same process), so I decided not to pay that fee, and since then I of course receive all the spam I can get, etc.
This story shows that (i) the data can be kept private (and of course they will be released when requested by legal process), and (ii) everyone knows that having the data publicly available feeds spam and alike, and could cause hassle (even threaten authors of dissident speech in various and unpredicted circomstances).
I have nothing against people making business out of their innovative ideas, etc. I just don't think it is ICANN's mission to secure business opportunities (especially like that one), while for the sake of it, exposing people's privacy without their consent, and poptentially people's life.
Mawaki
--- Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
Philip originally wrote;
> I agree. It is not my logic. I am NOT making the assertion in (2). > You assume that because a Registrar agreement TODAY requires public > access, that is the status quo upon which we are defining the purpose > of WHOIS. > In other words you are defining purpose only in the context of the > current means of access.
<snip>
Ross replied;
The implication is quite obviously different than how it appears to you. The assumptions made have nothing to do with the status quo, and everything to do with refining the status quo to make it more useful and more meaningful to a broader set of participants. This is what our policy development processes are all about - change.
Apologies, its early around these parts - this last paragraph should have read:
The implication is quite obviously different than how it appears to you. The assumptions made have nothing to do with setting definitions in
terms of the the status quo, and everything to do with refining the
status quo to make it more useful and more meaningful to a broader set of participants. This is what our policy development processes are all about - change.