+1
Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh/Cambodia
On 01/22/2012 01:50 AM, 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]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]<[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]>
>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>
>
>
--
In April 2011, I started a new blog:
...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/
continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.
This is my latest posting:
On Law Enforcement (8 January 2012)
http://www.thinking21.org/?p=682
Norbert Klein
[log in to unmask]
Phnom Penh / Cambodia
|
