Comments on the Whois compliance models

[Stephanie Perrin]

My humble apologies for letting folks down on the draft I promised.  I 
am having computer and Internet access issues at the moment.  A draft 
will be coming shortly, I hope, but I also think this looks great and 
has the merit of being brief.  Mine is too long and detailed.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2018-01-27 08:19, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
> I think this is very well drafted, and makes a convincing case. Well done.
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
>> January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>
>>
>>
>> Principles
>>
>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three fundamental
>> principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is acceptable to the
>> NCSG.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That is,
>> the data that is collected and the data that are published must directly and
>> demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in Article 1 of its
>> new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that is based on the
>> way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed indiscriminately
>> in a public directory. The fact that certain people currently use Whois for
>> any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois is to provide thick data
>> about the domain and its registrant to anyone who wants it for any reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and not
>> vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized governance of
>> the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible and coordinated.
>> Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and practices of Whois
>> along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria for
>> access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>> resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
>> new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>> we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
>> community review and approval.
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only viable
>> option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to that
>> which is required for maintaining the stability, security and resiliency of
>> the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would be
>> presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar, registry
>> or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due process
>> for gaining access to additional information.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly displayed
>> under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be within
>> ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record, such as an
>> email address for the technical contact and even possibly the name of the
>> registrant.
>>
>>
>>
>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is completely
>> unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor is, we
>> believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified by the
>> purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>
>>
>>
>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and
>> processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
>> certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
>> thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
>> and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
>> affected.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180127/cc72724d/attachment.htm>