Fully agree with you that the full story is much more nuanced and that an imbalanced view of an issue that requires a reasonable understanding of the various viewpoints is not particularly helpful.
As the author says nothing about the legitimate positive uses that WHOIS data is put to, but only mentions the inappropriate uses, there are in our group those who say nothing about the inappropriate uses of WHOIS data, but only mention the legitimate positive uses.

What I said since the beginning is that we need a well balanced position as defenders of the end users’ interest, all end users As we have to prevent criminals from harming the end users, we also need to prevent other kind of criminals from using end users data for their own (illegal) interest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
             +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le 3 sept. 2018 à 04:14, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> a écrit :

As Alan notes, this is one person's view of the context, seen from a rather
particular point of view.  Facts are included and excluded quite
selectively.  It's particularly silly to call those who disagree with the
author's point of view "privacy opponents" -- just as it would be silly to
call those who agree with the author's point of view "privacy fetishists"
or "privacy maximalists."  But I guess a story needs good guys and bad guys
need to be called things like "privacy opponents" and "copyright
maximalists."

The blog post says nothing about the legitimate positive uses that WHOIS
data is put to, but only mentions the inappropriate uses.  It then makes
very simplistic statements about the effect that withholding that data has
had, which fundamentally miscast the positions of those on the "other side"
from the author.  The full story is much more nuanced.  An imbalanced view
of an issue that requires a reasonable understanding of the various
viewpoints is not particularly helpful. Of course, there's a place for
advocacy, but it should be recognized as such.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 1:43 AM Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you, Marita.  Very informative background.

Kaili



 ----- Original Message -----
 From: Marita Moll
 To: cpwg@icann.org
 Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 3:00 AM
 Subject: Re: [CPWG] Next possible move related to GDPR


 Some context for the attached draft circulated by Alan:


https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/08/29/special-interests-push-u-s-congress-to-override-icanns-whois-policy-process/


 Marita


 On 8/29/2018 2:47 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

   Not of direct relevance to our work, but perhaps interesting.

   Alan



_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 _______________________________________________
 CPWG mailing list
 CPWG@icann.org
 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs



--
Greg Shatan
greg@isoc-ny.org

"The Internet is for everyone"
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs