For reasons I describe below, I fear very much that questions about Whois
will be send to /dev/null after the ideas of the TF are implemented. The
defenders of IntProp have what they need, topic dismissed. The balance
between individual and corporate rights being changed again without enough
The report should determine that other topics are dealt with in a timely
matter. I mean in a way that avoids them being stalled, like the UDRP
revision has been for over 2 years. A way to achieve this is to include a
reversal rule: If the other topics (the main one: privacy) are not dealt
with before a certain date, the new rules will lose their force at that
date. There MUST be an incentive for the IntProp people or nothing will
happen about Whois for the next 3 years.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:27:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <email@example.com>
Subject: Suspicions (RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard)
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, at 08:21 [=GMT-0500], Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:
> Yes, I understand that some people think that domain names are
> substituable for email addresses. That's an interesting, and unproven
> model for the "average" user. Not the techie oriented crowd who hangs
> around ICANN, but those everyday users of the Internet and other
> communications services who are focused on their daily lives, and their
> businesses, not on technology and its fascinations. :-) THAT was not
> meant as in any way critical, just a note that well, there are are
> millions of email users out there and they are quite happily served by
> ISPs. AND the ISPs are quite happy serving them.
If you mean that it is difficult for the average user to set up email for
a domain name, I feel I must contradict you. You may have been right some
years back. It is now, however, not more difficult as setting up an
account in Outlook. I am thinking of registrars that offer (free) email
forwarding or mailboxes with a domain name registration.
> As to policy questions, versus personal opinions, the question of
> whether all data that is presently in the WHOIS should be there is a
> topic yet to be discussed as policy; the question of whether there is a
> need for differentiated access to data elements is yet to be discussed
> as policy. The WHOIS TF will be recommending further policy
> examination. The final report on some of its work is published for final
> comment. When we say "final report", we mean final report about this
> particular set of work. The Council will determine further work, but I
> expect that there will be support for next steps.
Forgive me for being very, very suspicious here. Not of you, but of the
'processes'. I fear that these discussions will be stalled, like those
about the UDRP are within ICANN. Due for review end 2000 but nothing
happens. I very much get the feeling that the IntProp people are served,
and then the topic is buried effectively to avoid other interests being
taken serious, as they are counter to the wishes of the IntProp interests.
 All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.