<div dir="ltr">Hi Rob,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for chiming in on these issues. I understand your perspective on the issue of your personal data, except for one statement which confused me:</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">"The local supermarket will pay me £44 (appx $60) for my postal address [ in vouchers, discounts, freebies etc ] - that 's the "value" of my data to one user - if there was suitable recompense to registrants & registrars & registries for access to whois data , I'm sure there would be less objection to the system !"</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"></div><div><br></div><div>Using the arguments you have made about individual control over PII, what right does my chosen registrar or registry have to get compensated for my whois data? Put another way, I get your point about 'recompense to registrants' but I don't understand how you can add in '& registrars & registries' unless an individual has explicitly given permission to those companies to monetize their whois data? </div><div><br></div><div>-Tim Chen</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><p style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px"><a href="http://www.domaintools.com/" style="font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:11px;color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">www.domaintools.com</a><br></p><p style="font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:11px;color:rgb(68,68,68);margin:0px"><br></p><p style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:11px;margin:0px"><a href="http://info.domaintools.com/em-sig.html" style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" target="_blank"><img src="http://info.domaintools.com/rs/132-OHD-785/images/signature.png" alt="DomainTools"></a></p><div><br></div></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Rob Golding <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com" target="_blank">rob.golding@astutium.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
There's a huge difference between domains and telephone numbers<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The type of directory is irrelevant to my rights to control my data<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I don't think an article dated from 2000 brings relevant points.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That we've still not brought policy or technology upto almost 20 year old legislation just shows how unfit for purpose WHOIS has become<br>
<br>
Much of that is because enforcement of existing legislation has been lax, but the Snowden issue, repealling on the Data Retention Directive, scrapping of Safe-Harbour and a need to toughen up both the rules and the enforcement are what's led to the GDPR, which is now in force, and next year will be actively enforced.<br>
<br>
Multi-million $ fines rather than slap-on-wrists with 20k fines might start to change attitudes a bit as the penalties have been inflation adjusted, and now the data-subject is also entitled to compensation for the unauthorised use of their data - so there will be an "incentive" to start sueing people<br>
<br>
The local supermarket will pay me £44 (appx $60) for my postal address [ in vouchers, discounts, freebies etc ] - that 's the "value" of my data to one user - if there was suitable recompense to registrants & registrars & registries for access to whois data , I'm sure there would be less objection to the system !<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
-Social norms regarding handling spam have drastically shifted in the<br>
past decades<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Spam is just one of the numerous (ab)uses of the data. I imagine very few people have "consented" to spam, even if it was listed as a "proposed legitimate use" for which they could actively consent.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If you don't choose to disclose<br>
your information in whois, then no one has a right to it<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Whether I choose to be listed in a directory (which I dont _really_ have much choice over as a registrant of numerous gtlds) or not doesn't change that it's *MY* data, nor that most of the (tld dependant) "privacy" options now available are relatively new (whois has been there for 30 years)<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If you do<br>
disclose, knowing full well that whois is public, you shouldn't be<br>
surprised at the results.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
And therein lies what I think is the mindset problem, the "results" are (legally) ONLY what I give explicit permission for it to be used for, any other use is not permitted, and I have the right to revoke that permission, free of charge (to me) at any stage.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The entitlements you listed(control over sharing, how data is used), on the Internet in<br>
2017, are wholly unenforceable for anything publicly available.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Google pay thousands of times as much as ICANN to lawyers and yet they lost over the "right to be forgotten" issue under the older and much laxer legislation - so we'll see what is "enforceable"<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If we want to talk about ways to prevent abuse of whois data, first of<br>
all, the "reverse lookup" and "historical" directories in their<br>
current state are unlikely to be involved in abuse at all-<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The directories themselves would constitute an "abuse" - in the main they've breached both law and contract to obtain that data<br>
<br>
Maybe we need a definition of what "public" means ?<br>
Rob<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></blockquote></div><br></div>