Comments on the Whois compliance models

[Mueller, Milton L]

Kathy see comments below


1.       "The purpose of Whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission." ==> that's absolutely true but we don't have that purpose yet (and I have to tell you that the RDS Working Group is not doing a great job of analyzng "purpose" right now

Then we agree. You should then support the comments, which focuses on developing a mission-consistent purpose. Your logic escapes me

unlimited "all you can eat access" by everyone, including intellectual property attorneys and law enforcement. That is happily going to change!!

No, Kathy, it isn't unless we go with model 3 and then define a limited mission-consistent purpose for Whois

2.       "Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and not vary by jurisdiction." ==> Yes, and that's what the ECO Model and Model 2B provide. But, unfortunately, that's Model 3 does not provide uniformity; Model 3 provide great differentiation of protection, with only private individuals being protected, and not the political, sexual, religious, educational groups that I discussed in one of my recent emails - the array of groups that we protect engaged in huge amount of controversial and critical speech and services. The ICANN Model 3 here is very clear: "Display unless field includes personal data." (ICANN's Proposed Interim Models for Compliance, pages 12-14).  Thus, for noncommercial organizations, exposure of Registrant/Admin/Tech name, address, phone and email will remain completely open. Model 2B and ECO do better and protect legal and natural persons. That's hugely important - and a tribute to our years of work on this subject!

No, Model 3 does not have the registrant name. Check your facts, please. I don't think there is anything wrong with having the tech contacts name, but here I agree with you that the4re is room for discussion and debate about which data elements could be made public and which couldn't. That is why it is so unfortunate that the people we had working on this issue dropped the ball and put us in a position to have to hurriedly develop a position on this. It is also a reason why it is bad to have these critical policy diuscussions hidden on the PC list and not taking place before the membership.


3.       "No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months."  ==> We are unlikely to go from infinite public access to completely restricted private access right now. The Multistakeholder Process won't support that. But the ECO model does a lot to help on this particular issue. I'll outline in my next email.

So it sounds like you are agreeing that 2B is _not_ an option. Again we are in violent agreement.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180130/d93232a3/attachment.htm>