[comments-whois] Forwarding of comments to list
-----Original Message-----
Dear Mr. Nunn
Thank you for your comments. All comments which I receive or any Task Force member receives, will be forwarded to the public comment site, so that they are available to the full Task Force, and other interested parties. May I request your permission to do so? Or, if you prefer, it would be simplier if you posted directly.
We are just at the beginning of the open comment period. I hope you will monitor the comments on the dnso site and perhaps contribute further.
You can find the comments site at www.comments-whois@dnso.org.
Regards,
Marilyn Cade,Co-chair, WHOIS Task force
cc: Antonio Harris, Co-chair
>From: "Jefferson Nunn" <Jefferson@isgca.com> >To: <marilynscade@hotmail.com> >CC: <icann@icann.org>,<lynn@icann.org>,<hewitt@icann.org> >Subject: FW: Serious Privacy Issue with WhoIS and Valid Phone Numbers >Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:02:26 -0700 > >Marilyn, > >Please read through the email thread below. My original email is on the >bottom. Mary's reply is above. > >For the same reasons that I would not want to provide a home number, I >would not want to provide a work number. Additionally, why should I have to >pay $40 a month for a voicemailbox when I shouldn't have to provide a phone >number at all. Now, I will have an additional activity that I would have to >perform every day to delete all the voicemails from harassers to avoid the >"your voicemailbox is full" and again be at risk for a $500(!) fine. > >There seems to be an absence of consideration given to private domains. >Domains like http://www.thomassmith.com and just private individuals that >want to share basic information between themselves. > >As far as the argument of saying, "just allow your third party >registrar to >provide their contact details". Why should a Third Party Registrar be at >risk for similar activities? Why can't an email and an physical address >suffice? Email is a far more reliable and documentable activity for the >purposes of notifications regarding whois and domain registration than >phone numbers. Phone calls can't be proof-enough for notification even in a >court of law. If you tape the conversation, you may violate wiretapping >laws. > >In any case, again, I believe there is a serious lack of consideration >and >foresight given to the topic of the requirement of private individual >domain holders to provide valid working telephone numbers. > >Regards, > >Jefferson > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary Hewitt [mailto:hewitt@icann.org] > Sent: Wed 10/16/2002 4:37 PM > To: Jefferson Nunn > Cc: > Subject: RE: Serious Privacy Issue with WhoIS and Valid Phone Numbers > > > > Jefferson, > As we discussed briefly on the phone, there are alternatives. For >instance, you can provide a work number, or voicemail, etc. > This issue is being looked at by the Domain Name Supporting Organization >headed up by Marilyn Cade. You may want to forward her your email and >providing her feedback on the Whois issue. Her email address is Marilyn >Cade [marilynscade@hotmail.com]. > > below is an update as to what is happening regarding the issue from a >Washington Internet Daily publication: > > The Names Council WHOIS Task Force is seeking comments on its interim >report on how to improve the accuracy and ease of use of the WHOIS database. The >interim report, which can be found at www.dnso.org, contains several recommendations: (1) Better >enforcement of global top-level domain (gTLD) registry contracts could improve accuracy of WHOIS data >without incurring significant additional costs, although some task force members believed some >enforcement actions could come with costs. (2) Graduated sanctions for erroneous WHOIS data would have a $250 >fine after notice of noncompliance, which would escalate to $500, then $1,000 in 30-day >increments if action still wasn’t taken to correct the listing. A 5-day suspension of registration rights would >follow, leading to removal of accreditation if no remedies were undertaken. The task force is seeking comment on the >possible effectiveness of that graduated approach. (3) Several methods to improve search >capabilities were proposed. (4) The task force said 89% of respondents said WHOIS information shouldn’t be >disseminated for marketing purposes unless the registrant opted in. Any comments filed by Oct. 22 will be >taken into account at the ICANN meeting in Shanghai, the report said, and comments will be accepted until >Nov. 8 at comments-whois@dnso.org. A final report will be ready in early Dec. for consideration by the ICANN >board, the task force said. > > Please let me know if you have any other questions. > > Best regards, > Mary > > Mary Hewitt > ICANN > Director of Communications > 4676 Admiralty Way #330 > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > 310-301-5801 > hewitt@icann.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jefferson Nunn [mailto:Jefferson@isgca.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:47 PM > To: hewitt@icann.org > Subject: FW: Serious Privacy Issue with WhoIS and Valid Phone Numbers > Importance: High > > > Thanks for the call. Attached is the email I sent previously. Any help >would be greatly appreciated. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jefferson Nunn > Sent: Wed 10/16/2002 3:21 PM > To: 'lynn@icann.org' > Cc: 'icann@icann.org' > Subject: Serious Privacy Issue with WhoIS and Valid Phone >Numbers > > > > Mr. Lynn, > > > > I am writing to you out of concern regarding the issue of >placing valid phone numbers on privately-held domain records. Presently, I hold the >domain of Mindragon.com. I first submitted an email about this issue last >week and I have not heard anything back, so I am resubmitting the request. > > > > In case you are unaware, there is a serious electronic war >presently being waged using the internet. Spammers, Hackers and Vigilantes >are in abundance on the internet causing threats to privacy, freedom of >speech and our way of life. I recently wrote an article condemning the >violent actions of SPEWS.org and its’ affiliates. These people look for >any information that they can obtain and will use it against you in >whatever fashion in order to seek retribution for what they feel is a >threat to them. Shortly after I wrote that article, my spam count rose from >2-3 per week to 100 to 200 per day. In addition, I received approximately >30 to 40 new articles of mail per week that could be classified as spam. >Truly, these people do not have any regard for personal privacy or personal >freedoms as they supposedly campaign to rid our world of spammers by >destroying companies and causing tens of millions of dollars in damages. > > > > On a similar note, I am surprised that ICANN would choose to >force its’ registrars to enforce the policy of providing a valid phone number >through which someone can be personally located. Think about this for a >moment; if Bill Gates setup www.billgates.com <http://www.billgates.com/> , >would you expect to dial 1-800-bill-gates and reach him personally? > > > > In fact, ICANN does not enforce this policy at all for its’ >own members. ALEJANDRO PISANTY is listed at > http://www.icann.org/biog/pisanty.htm as having an email address that > points to apisan@servidor.unam.mx. Unam.mx according to www.allwhois.com <http://www.allwhois.com/> doesn’t have a valid phone number, email >address, physical address or even an expiration date. He is just one >person. I found four such listings without even trying on ICANN.org’s >website! > > > > I can understand why aol.com should list a valid phone number >and wouldn’t mind listing 703-265-4670. Not that you will reach an actual >human at that phone number, but it is an AOL phone number. > > > > I cannot understand why a Private Individual, such as myself, >that is listing a domain that is a Private Website domain is required to list a >valid phone number that would then subject myself to: > > > > 1) Telephone Harassment > > a. If you file a complaint with the police, you’d be lucky >to have the harasser stop. More than likely, they’ll just switch >phone numbers and continue to harass you. > > 2) Telemarketing Harassment > > a. Supposedly, California is passing a law against this. But >still, not every state has a law stopping this time-wasting activity > > 3) Wiretapping (land-lines) > > a. Land-lines can be tapped relatively easily. Any spy shop >has the equipment required to do it. Takes just seconds and you can >listen to lots of private information. Yeah, it’s illegal, but first you gotta >know that it is happening. Most people never know. > > 4) Wiretapping (cell) > > a. They have kits that are available on the black market to >tap into digital cell phone communications. So, that isn’t secure either. > > > > It’s one thing to request addresses and email addresses. >Emails can’t hurt. One can use virus protection, firewalls and tools like >ad-aware to ensure that the machine is secure. Emails can even be encrypted >for total security. Spam filters are coming online so that spams will be >all but eliminated. Snail Mails can go to a Post Office box. If any armed >bandits show up there, the police can and will be called. So, physical >addresses can be made secure. Telephones aren’t in the same boat. >Wiretaps can be made such that people never know that it is happening. And >lots of private communications go over these wiretaps. So your system, >presently, condones the activity of Privacy Violations and Identity Theft. >This is why I placed the number to the local police department. I can >actually be reached through there, although, it's a bit of a convoluted >process... > > > > Now, I find it ironic that registrars are not required to >check every single domain to ensure that all phone numbers are valid. It’s >almost tempting to write a routine that sucks down every single domain and >check every single phone number for validity and auto-submit a complaint to >ICANN’s complaint system. This is a valid process that conforms to your >own rules. Any Internet User can request WhoIS information without any >penalties. Any citizen can place a phone call. Any internet user can submit >a complaint to ICANN. I’m sure if such a routine were enacted, I would >shortly receive a letter from your attorney requesting that I stop >bombarding you with these requests. At that point, I would simply point to >your so-called “regulations†and state that I am following the rules by >submitting complaints about invalid whois information. However, just like >your request to me, this process doesn’t make a damn bit of sense! > > > > Therefore, I humbly request that this policy be reconsidered >in light of present day events and factors that the people writing the >policies may have been clueless about in 1992. It certainly was a different >world then. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jefferson Nunn > Chief Information Officer > Internet Solution Group, Inc. > 2535 Townsgate Road > Suite 310 > Westlake Village, CA 91361 > Tel: (805) 446-2222 x 129 > Cel: (805) 750-8700 > > > > > > >
|