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.