<div dir="ltr">Sam, in relation to the "at risk" groups that you work with. Would you agree that the groups themselves with their special use-cases need to take some responsibility for their own privacy? Don't those groups still need to file taxes and file some paperwork for public corporate directories and property ownership directories in their areas? If those public disclosure rules can be dealt with, then is the current WHOIS an issue that is any more difficult to navigate than the others I mentioned?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Chen, Tim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tim@domaintools.com" target="_blank">tim@domaintools.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thank you Sam for being a rational voice.<div><br></div><div>as a 'stupid consumer' who actually prefers to have my whois data public (there are many many reasons people will choose this, and it is not because they lack intelligence or some enlightened privacy perspective), I can only observe that this RDS group is quickly devolving into single-issue voters yelling at each other and accomplishing nothing, which is why I quickly retreated after trying to contribute early on.</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Sam Lanfranco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net" target="_blank">sam@lanfranco.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As a domain owner and one who works with at risk groups in less than open societies I don't have one "dog in this race". I work with groups, and myself, where lots, or little, information is available through WHOIS, and in some cases (e.g. for ccTLD .ca) the minimum is set by Registry/Registrar policy. For groups that risk physical harm privacy/proxy is essential (and that includes not just repressive regimes, it includes some half-way houses for abused women in North America). We are dealing with multiple stakeholders here.<br>
<br>
We need to remind ourselves that we are looking for the viable intersection of the needs of four groups: the registrant, the registrars/registries, the various data protection regimes, and those who (for whatever reasons) make legal use of what is deemed to be properly available.<br>
<br>
The postings that verge on character attacks, even against "stupid consumers" don't contribute to our work. We are looking for the acceptable intersection of four sets of needs, wants, and (in the case of governments) policies, and we are not looking for, nor would we reach a consensus on, a null set.<br>
<br>
By any assessment of the pace of progress we have been painfully slow. For those of you who are face-to-face in Abu Dhabi, for the sake of the work, and the efforts of those of us who cannot attend, focus on the what and why of what constitutes the viable set that will move us toward consensus.<br>
<br>
Sam Lanfranco (ncsg/npoc)<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><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">_________________________________<br>Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.</div>
</div>