RE: [council] Regarding data collected and the purpose of collecting data
Hello Philip,
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.
Well WHOIS only exists within a section of the agreement that relates to public access. WHOIS is really a protocol that is suitable for public access but not especially suitable for other forms of access. I think we are first trying to determine what should be available publicly. If some data that is currently public, is no longer public, this then raises the important issue of who can get access to the non-public information and how they would get access to the information. Once this is determined - you can then look at what technologies are available (e.g CRISP) to implement such policies.
A vote on Wednesday will not be a solution.
Agreed. However we need to move forward to focus on a solution. Terms of reference no. 3 is quite clear: "Determine what data collected should be available for public access in the context of the purpose of WHOIS. Determine how to access data that is not available for public access." This is indeed the heart of the issue and the sooner we spend time on that the better. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars rep on GNSO Council.
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.
Philip - further to Bruce's comments, your statement confuses "means of access" with "terms of contract". The contract actually specifies the scope of data that must be made accessible (referenced earlier, the means of access (i.e. the Whois protocol) and the parties to which this data must be disclosed (everyone). This forms most of the foundation of the TF terms of reference; 1. Figure out if the current data being published is appropriate (whether it should be broadened or narrowed) 2. Figure out if all of this data should be made public. 3. Specify how data that is not being made public can be accessed. (there is also accuracy-related and other work not entirely germane to this discussion). The terms of this contract are subject to any consensus policy adopted by the Board of Directors. 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. No one I've talked to views their support of Formulation #1 in terms of the status quo. It is viewed as the foundation for a new status quo. A foundation which will not, as you are quick to point out, solve all the problems we face and suddenly align the viewpoints of big business vs. those of the producers and non-commercial users. But certainly, one that will be solid enough to build on. -r
Ross, well exactly. I agree a TF function is: 1. Figure out if the current data being published is appropriate (whether it should be broadened or narrowed). ie we are discussing potential change. So why is your starting point on purpose, the current contract obligations ? Surely the contract is the end of the process not the beginning? Contract implements policy. Does Council agree on this? Philip
Philip Sheppard wrote:
So why is your starting point on purpose, the current contract obligations ?
It was not. I've said this before, I'll repeat it again - Formulation #1 was written using a clean-sheet approach. We talked about the outputs, our goals, etc. It was not defined in terms of the current obligations.
Surely the contract is the end of the process not the beginning? Contract implements policy.
That's the theory anyways :) -r
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.
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.
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? 2) I beleive that to be unlisted in a phone book, there is normally a charge? 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. 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.
Anthony Harris wrote:
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!)
Which is one very good reason why the lifespan of any task force should be shorter than the term of any councillor. It is impossible to ensure that everyone will be on the same page after five years of dilly-dallying at the task force level :) -r
amen !! Ross Rader wrote:
Anthony Harris wrote:
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!)
Which is one very good reason why the lifespan of any task force should be shorter than the term of any councillor. It is impossible to ensure that everyone will be on the same page after five years of dilly-dallying at the task force level :)
-r
=)) s On 12/04/06, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
Anthony Harris wrote:
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!)
Which is one very good reason why the lifespan of any task force should be shorter than the term of any councillor. It is impossible to ensure that everyone will be on the same page after five years of dilly-dallying at the task force level :)
-r
Hi Ross, I was expecting you... You have a point there, I wonder why it took so long? Hmmmm..... Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Rader" <ross@tucows.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [council] Regarding data collected and the purpose of collecting data
Anthony Harris wrote:
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!)
Which is one very good reason why the lifespan of any task force should be shorter than the term of any councillor. It is impossible to ensure that everyone will be on the same page after five years of dilly-dallying at the task force level :)
-r
Anthony Harris wrote:
Hi Ross,
I was expecting you... You have a point there, I wonder why it took so long? Hmmmm.....
I'm not sure. I didn't participate in the task force that you and Marilyn co-chaired and only started working on this issue with the creation of TF3. -- -rr "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better." - Ralph Waldo Emerson Contact Info: Ross Rader Director, Research & Innovation Tucows Inc. c. 416.828.8783 Get Started? http://start.tucows.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
In that case you might possibly not be in a position to qualify the entire period as 'dilly-dallying at the task force level' ? Tony Harris
I'm not sure.
I didn't participate in the task force that you and Marilyn co-chaired and only started working on this issue with the creation of TF3.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Rader" <ross@tucows.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [council] Regarding data collected and the purpose of collecting data
Anthony Harris wrote:
Hi Ross,
I was expecting you... You have a point there, I wonder why it took so long? Hmmmm.....
I'm not sure.
I didn't participate in the task force that you and Marilyn co-chaired and only started working on this issue with the creation of TF3.
--
-rr
"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Contact Info: Ross Rader Director, Research & Innovation Tucows Inc. c. 416.828.8783
Get Started? http://start.tucows.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
Anthony Harris wrote:
In that case you might possibly not be in a position to qualify the entire period as 'dilly-dallying at the task force level' ?
Perhaps not, but the Whois policy output is de minimis. Except in this case, the saying "de minimis non curat praetor" (the law is not interested in trivial matters) doesn't seem to hold true. -- -rr "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better." - Ralph Waldo Emerson Contact Info: Ross Rader Director, Research & Innovation Tucows Inc. c. 416.828.8783 Get Started? http://start.tucows.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
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.
Corrigendum: Instead of,
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... The above paragraph should read: But I don't see the equivalent of ICANN (a private corporation, with global scope) in telecommunications by whom the operators (of national networks) would say they are _required_ to publish client's personal data. In this case, they only need to be consistent with their national law, which is normal. Besides, having an electronic database publicly available and completely searchable on a global network, from which you get someone's personal contact details by the simple clue of a domain name, is not the same as having the data published in hard copy (in most countries), or even available on the web or stored in any searchable electronic form (usually, provided that you are already in posession of at least one _personal_ entry, e.g. name). In addition, number of countries in the latter case provide the necessary privacy policy and data protection guidelines (e.g. in a country like France where I lived several years), but then again, things might vary from a country to another... Thus, the necessity not to impose globally in the name of ICANN, anything that is not necessary for it to achieve its mission. Mawaki --- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
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.
participants (8)
-
Anthony Harris -
Bruce Tonkin -
Ken Stubbs -
Mawaki Chango -
Norbert Klein -
Philip Sheppard -
Ross Rader -
Sophia B