Re: [council] Compromise wording on WHOIS

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Philip,

While it is very much appreciated that effort is being made to address 
the privacy and other concerns about the over-broad Formulation #2 of 
the WHOIS purpose definition, I don't see how this reformulation is any 
better. 

What purposes would have been included in the original Formulation#2, 
but are now excluded due to its rewording? 

It seems to me that just about every purpose under the sun falls within 
the scope of re-Formulation#2.  Every issue about the use of a domain 
name relates to either the "networking use", or "technical use", or 
"legal use" of a domain name.  So taking out the phrase "or other uses" 
makes no difference in practice.

** Are there any concrete examples of types of uses that are no longer 
within the ambit of #2, but previously did fall within the admittedly 
over-broad definition of the original #2? **

Also, the Formulation#2's stated purpose of "legal use" is clearly 
outside of the scope of ICANN's purely technical mission.

Thank you,
Robin



Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Council,
> In preparation for the discussion and possible vote on WHOIS purpose please find attached a
> proposed compromise definition.
> The background to this compromise is as follows:
> - It is not intended to be a new formulation 2 but a new approach and thus an amendment to
> the proposed vote. 
> - The new wording seeks to accommodate numerous concerns expressed at the last Council
> meeting and in the recent WG paper:
> 1. it speaks not of the purpose of "WHOIS" but the purpose for which the "data is
> collected". This reflects the concerns rightly raised by the non-commercial constituency in
> that previous definitions were not compliant with data protection laws such as the EU data
> protection directive. The intent here is that the scope should be no wider than the scope of
> such laws.
>
> 2. The new wording removes the overly wide phrase "or other uses" phrase in a 
> previous
> definition. In this way it stays compliant also with data protection laws in 
> that purpose
> has to be explicit.
>
> 3. The definition is silent on questions of subsequent access to data or data publication.
> This issue was raised by the Registrars in that the purpose of WHOIS was being defined in
> the context of the current manifestation of WHOIS with its current open access and
> publication. This definition is intended not to make ANY assumption about access. 
>
> 4. In the same way this definition is not intended to override any subsequent 
> debate on
> privacy.
>
>
> I hope that by addressing the concerns above, we can get the full support 
> of Council to a
> definition describing the purposes of data collection and one that is not blind 
> to the use
> that such data is being put today in pursuit of consumer protection and 
> measures to prevent
> crime. To pursue a vote that would divide Council between the previous 
> formulations 1 and 2
> would not move us forward. I hope this third way ( excuse me sounding like UK 
> prime minister
> Tony Blair!) will be a positive way forward for Council and one that will also 
> get the full
> support of the GAC.
>
>
> Philip
>