These are all great observations and thanks for bringing them forward. I also agree with Avri, Kathy, Marc and others.
Would it be possible for someone who has already contributed to this list to also write a brief statement and send it to the list for endorsement? It would be ideal if it could be a NCSG statement, but in any case it looks like it can be a NCUC one.
Thanks
KK
From: Marc Rotenberg <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: Marc Rotenberg <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:24:52 +0000
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public comments - Think hard!!
On this point, there are a couple of US cases that are relevant.
In NAACP v. Alabama (1958) the US Supreme Court held that
the state of Alabama could not force the disclosure of the NAACP
membership lists. The Court said that the right to freedom of
association would be limited if the names of members of
unpopular organizations could be obtained by the government.
This is a very influential opinion that also contributed to later
decisions protecting anonymous speech as a part of freedom
of expression.
More recently, the US Supreme Court held in an open
government case that AT&T could not claim a right of
"personal privacy." Corporations, though they may be
"legal persons" do not have a right "personal privacy."
Obviously, we believe there should be strong privacy
safeguards for individuals as opposed to corporations.
But It may be worth considering, in the context of ICANN
and WHOIS, whether political associations are entitled
to some privacy rights, given the close relationship to the
exercise of political freedom.
This would seem to be a reasonable position for the NCSG
to put forward.
Regards to all,
Marc Rotenberg.
PS Press associations also, in some contexts, are entitled
to greater privacy rights.
On Jan 21, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
All,
I think this is a very dangerous slippery slope. Natural persons deserve privacy, yes, and that completely consistent with the EU Data Protection Directive. But in the US and other places around the world Organizations deserve privacy protection too. If we give this up now, we will never get it back.
I strongly agree with Avri that the organizations that protect natural persons are important, and so too are the organizations that deal with political freedoms, religious freedoms, political minorities, religious minorities, and even organizations who are parents organizing baseball teams, soccer teams and home-schooling groups. Organizations are the **perfect example** of what a Noncommercial Message does **not need to be tied into An Physical Address in a Globally Available Database.**
What law enforcement really cares about is using the Whois to track down those who do e-commerce deals and then cheat someone. That's fair, and I and others are working on ways to help them with very narrowly-tailored policies. But that does not mean that we give up the Privacy of those engaged in Noncommercial Conduct or simply ordinary conduct (and in the US, that includes Organizations engaged in an array of protected speech -- note: we had a case where law enforcement wanted all the members of an NAACP branch, "a civil rights organization for ethnic minorities in the united States," and the answer was "no" on privacy grounds - organizations have rights of privacy and speakers of all types, including those banded together in organizations have privacy in their contentious, minority speech.)
Please know: that there is an ongoing move in the gTLDs to eliminate proxy and privacy services, and if they prevail (now or 10 years from now), we will be left with only the slim protections, if any, in the ICANN Whois database. So yes, if .CAT (Catalonia, Spain) wants privacy for its individuals, that's great. But it sets a precedent for all gTLDs, and in that precedent, we need all Organizations not actively engaged in e-commerce protected too.
Big sigh, as that is a lot to talk about. I have lived Whois policies for the last year as Vice-Chair of the Whois Review Team, and for 10 years before that as one of the diligent NCUC reps on Whois Task Forces (including Milton, Wendy, Robin).
As a policy matter, I would ask that our NCUC leaders strongly urge .CAT to modify its proposal to offer privacy protection for all noncommercial organizations that request it, too, as a condition of our support.
Best, Kathy (Kleiman)
Co-Founder, NCUC
Vice-Chair, Whois Review Team
Hi,
I agree, but I wonder whether it is worth suggesting something that goes one step further, the protection of some legal persons (mostly NGO and other civil society orgs) whose day to day operations are concerned with protecting natural persons facing a variety of physical threats.
So, I suggest we support, but say it does not go far enough.
(have not read it yet, going on your abstract - if they do have such an exception - i support it all the way)
avri
On 21 Jan 2012, at 11:50, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
.CAT proposes to revise its Registry agreement to support withholding of
some WHOIS data by individuals who opt out. It will not offer this
opt-out to legal persons.
I propose that NCSG support this amendment, with a simple: "NCSG
supports the availability of WHOIS privacy options for natural persons.
Accordingly, we support puntCAT's proposed amendment."
--Wendy
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public comments
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:08:05 -0800
From: Glen de Saint Géry<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm
.CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes
Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 20 January2012
Categories/Tags: Contracted Party Agreements
Purpose (Brief):
ICANN is opening today the public comment period for the Fundacio
puntCAT's, request to change its Whois according to EU data protection
legislation. The public comment period will be closed on 3 March 2012.
The .cat registry, submitted a Registry Service Evaluation Process
(RSEP) on August 2011.
At this time, ICANN has conducted a preliminary review in accordance
with the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and process set forth at
http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html. ICANN's preliminary
review (based on the information provided) did not identify any
significant competition, security, or stability issues.
The implementation of the request requires an amendment to the .cat
Registry Agreement signed 23 September 2005. This public forum requests
comments regarding the proposed amendment.
Public Comment Box Link:
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/cat-whois-changes-18jan12-en.htm
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://gnso.icann.org
--
|
