[council] Compromise wording on WHOIS

Robin Gross robin at ipjustice.org
Sat Apr 8 05:05:39 UTC 2006


Hi Philip,

While it is very much appreciated that effort is being made to address 
the privacy and other concerns about the over-broad Formulation #2 of 
the WHOIS purpose definition, I don't see how this reformulation is any 
better. 

What purposes would have been included in the original Formulation#2, 
but are now excluded due to its rewording? 

It seems to me that just about every purpose under the sun falls within 
the scope of re-Formulation#2.  Every issue about the use of a domain 
name relates to either the "networking use", or "technical use", or 
"legal use" of a domain name.  So taking out the phrase "or other uses" 
makes no difference in practice.

** Are there any concrete examples of types of uses that are no longer 
within the ambit of #2, but previously did fall within the admittedly 
over-broad definition of the original #2? **

Also, the Formulation#2's stated purpose of "legal use" is clearly 
outside of the scope of ICANN's purely technical mission.

Thank you,
Robin



Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 
>Council,
>In preparation for the discussion and possible vote on WHOIS purpose please find attached a
>proposed compromise definition.
>The background to this compromise is as follows:
>- It is not intended to be a new formulation 2 but a new approach and thus an amendment to
>the proposed vote. 
>- The new wording seeks to accommodate numerous concerns expressed at the last Council
>meeting and in the recent WG paper:
>1. it speaks not of the purpose of "WHOIS" but the purpose for which the "data is
>collected". This reflects the concerns rightly raised by the non-commercial constituency in
>that previous definitions were not compliant with data protection laws such as the EU data
>protection directive. The intent here is that the scope should be no wider than the scope of
>such laws.
>
>2. The new wording removes the overly wide phrase "or other uses" phrase in a previous
>definition. In this way it stays compliant also with data protection laws in that purpose
>has to be explicit.
>
>3. The definition is silent on questions of subsequent access to data or data publication.
>This issue was raised by the Registrars in that the purpose of WHOIS was being defined in
>the context of the current manifestation of WHOIS with its current open access and
>publication. This definition is intended not to make ANY assumption about access. 
>
>4. In the same way this definition is not intended to override any subsequent debate on
>privacy.
>
>
>I hope that by addressing the concerns above, we can get the full support of Council to a
>definition describing the purposes of data collection and one that is not blind to the use
>that such data is being put today in pursuit of consumer protection and measures to prevent
>crime. To pursue a vote that would divide Council between the previous formulations 1 and 2
>would not move us forward. I hope this third way ( excuse me sounding like UK prime minister
>Tony Blair!) will be a positive way forward for Council and one that will also get the full
>support of the GAC.
>
>
>Philip
>  
>




More information about the council mailing list