Re: [nc-whois] Critical Relationship Between Accuracy and Privacy That the WHOIS Task Force Continues To Overlook and My Contribution to the WHOIS Privacy Issues Report
I do not believe the Whois TF can "guarantee" how
implementation of its policies or recommendations will take place - that is not
its role. I think you will find strong support for privacy on this task
force, but bear in mind that implementation issues are beyond the scope of this
(and, frankly, any policy-oriented task force). You should reach out to
the various implementors of adopted and approved consensus policies - for
example, Registrars, via maybe Ken Stubbs, who is an active and vocal
participant in our TF, or me for the Registries.
>I am happy to work on the privacy issues report as long as the WHOIS
Task Force can guarantee that enforcement of
>accuracy and implementation of privacy safeguards would be concurrent
(or that implementation of appropriate privacy
>safeguards would precede enforcement of accuracy).
I makes me uncomfortable with what seems to be a confrontational statement
in your message (I will work on "x" only if "y") -- I have found most
of our TF members to be reasonable, approachable and intelligent
individuals who work very hard as volunteers to bring a better state of
Olive may work better than steel here.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:44
Subject: [nc-whois] Critical Relationship
Between Accuracy and Privacy That the WHOIS Task Force Continues To Overlook
and My Contribution to the WHOIS Privacy Issues Report
Dear Co-Members of the WHOIS Task Force:
Based on some of your comments during our
teleconference call this week, email postings, and GNSO teleconference meeting
today, I want to emphasize a very important point that some members of the
Task Force continue to overlook.
Enforcement of accuracy of
WHOIS data has serious implications on privacy. Some domain name
registrants have legitimate reasons for providing inaccurate WHOIS information
-- for example, to protect their privacy and protect their personally
identifiable information from being globally, publicly accessible -- and
especially when there are no privacy safeguards in place. A number of
studies demonstrate that when no privacy safeguards are in place, individuals
often engage in privacy "self-defense." When polled on the issue,
individuals regularly claim that they have withheld personal information and
have given false information. See:
Please also see the report I
submitted to the Federal Trade Commission for their panel on "Cooperation
Between the FTC and Domain Registration Authorities." <attached >
Again, while I do not oppose accurate data per se, I do oppose the Task
Force’s recommendation to enforce accuracy of WHOIS information when the Task
Force has failed to adequately address privacy issues. Minimally,
enforcement of accuracy and insurance of privacy safeguards should be
- · Privacy, Costs, and Consumers Privacy, Consumers,
and Costs: How the Lack of Privacy Costs Consumers and Why Business Studies
of Privacy Costs are Biased and Incomplete, Robert Gellman, March 26, 2002,
- · Trust and Privacy Online: Why Americans Want to
Rewrite the Rules, Pew Internet & American Life Project, August 20,
2000, http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=19; and
- · Graphic, Visualization, & Usability Center 7th
WWW User Survey, April 1997, http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-1997-04/#exec.
As per Ram’s email and the gTLD
constituency’s views on accuracy and privacy, I quote:
am happy to work on the privacy issues report as long as the WHOIS Task Force
can guarantee that enforcement of accuracy and implementation of privacy
safeguards would be concurrent (or that implementation of appropriate privacy
safeguards would precede enforcement of accuracy). This guarantee does
not conflict with the vote taken during the GNSO Council meeting today, as the
GNSO Council specifically and only voted on the WHOIS Task Force’s Final
Report’s consensus policies (see below).
- “My constituency members are saying that they are under considerable
pressure from legal, corporate, community and other bodies to tie
implementation of better accuracy and privacy together, so that enhanced
accuracy standards and mechanisms do not lead to unlawful privacy
methods/practices (for those who operate under the EU Data protection
restrictions, for instance).” http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00932.html
Bruce -- can you please
confirm my interpretation of the GNSO’s vote on the WHOIS Task Force’s Final
WHOIS Task Force
1. Consensus Policies: Accuracy of WHOIS Data.
two policies match the alternative wording proposed in the Implementation
Committee's report, sections 1 and 2, which was accepted by the WHOIS Task
Force. Further comments and additions are marked by underlining.
least annually, a registrar must present to the Registrant the current WHOIS
information, and remind the registrant that provision of false WHOIS
information can be grounds for cancellation of their domain name registration.
Registrants must review their WHOIS data, and make any corrections.
When registrations are deleted on the basis of submission of false contact
data or non-response to registrar inquiries, the redemption grace period --
once implemented -- should be applied. However, the redeemed domain name
should be placed in registrar hold status until the registrant has provided
updated WHOIS information to the registrar-of-record.
The Task Force
observes that the purpose of this policy is to make sure that the redemption
process cannot be used as a tool to bypass registrar's contact correction
2. Consensus Policies: Bulk Access to WHOIS Data.
are no substantial changes to to the policies contained in section 3.2 of the
Policy Report. However, the extensive discussion presented in that report has
been removed in this document. Additionally, some technical changes proposed
by ICANN's General Counsel have been incorporated.
A. Use of bulk
access WHOIS data for marketing should not be permitted. The Task Force
therefore recommends that the obligations contained in the relevant provisions
of the RAA be modified to eliminate the use of bulk access WHOIS data for
marketing purposes. The obligation currently expressed in section 188.8.131.52 of
the RAA could, for instance, be changed to read as follows (changed language
"Registrar's access agreement shall require the third
party to agree not to use the data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any
marketing activities, regardless of the medium used. Such media include but
are not limited to e-mail, telephone, facsimile, postal mail, SMS, and
The bulk-access provision contained in 184.108.40.206 of the
RAA would then become inapplicable.
B. Section 220.127.116.11 of the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement currently describes an optional clause of registrars'
bulk access agreements, which disallows further resale or redistribution of
bulk WHOIS data by data users. The use of this clause shall be made