Received: from mailbox.syr.edu [128.230.18.5] by gwia201.syr.edu; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:02:21 -0400 Received: from greenriver.icann.org (greenriver.icann.org [192.0.35.121]) by mailbox.syr.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8IC2DcJ022284 for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by greenriver.icann.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h8IC18F20469; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:01:08 -0700 Received: from pechora.icann.org (pechora.icann.org [192.0.34.35]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8IC18b20466 for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:01:08 -0700 Received: from melbourneit.com.au (mail.melbourneit.com.au [203.31.199.194]) by pechora.icann.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8IC2pW22767 for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:02:52 -0700 Received: from phoenix.mit (localhost.mit [127.0.0.1]) by melbourneit.com.au (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h8IC11W00455 for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:01:01 +1000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: [whois-sc] Draft terms of reference for task force to review data collected and data displayed Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:58:54 +1000 Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft terms of reference for task force to review data collected and data displayed Thread-Index: AcN92GDWpBRVuT02Tw2FI/8QFZVrXQAAIFBg From: "Bruce Tonkin" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by greenriver.icann.org id h8IC18b20467 Sender: [log in to unmask] Precedence: bulk Title: Review data collected and data displayed Participants: - 1 representative from each constituency - ALAC liaison - GAC liaison - ccNSO liaison - SECSAC liaison - liaisons from other GNSO WHOIS task forces Description of Task Force: ========================== There are domain name holders that are concerned about their privacy, both in terms of data that is collected and held about them, and also in terms of what parts of that data is made available to other parties. Extensive contact information can assist a registrar or network provider to contact a domain name holder in the event of a technical problem or in the event that a domain name may expire. However a domain name holder may be prepared to make a personal decision to accept a lower standard of service (e.g take their own steps to be reminded of when a domain expires) in return for greater privacy. A domain name holder may be prepared to provide extensive contact information to their domain name provider, but would prefer to control what information is available for public access. For example a telephone customer may provide detailed address information to a telephone service provider, but may elect not to have this information displayed in a public whitepages directory. Note however that there is generally access to the complete information to groups such as law enforcement and emergency services personnel. Another issue that is often raised is that there is limited public understanding of the present contractual obligations. Most domain name holders are unaware that their information has been displayed publically via the present port-43 and interactive web access methods. The purpose of this task force is to determine what contractual changes (if any) are required to either allow domain name holders to limit the amount of information that provide at the time of registration, or limit the amount of information that is made accessible for anonymous (public) access. In-scope ======== The purpose of this section to clarify the issues should be considered in proposing any policy changes. The task force should consider not only changes to data collection and display, but also to how registrants can be kept adequately informed of what data is made publicly available, and what data may be made available to other parties such as law enforcement and intellectual property owners. With respect to data collected, the task force should consider what is the amount of data that should be collected assuming that the domain name holder must be contactable. The task force should examine what data is made publicly (anonymous) available, and what choices a domain name holder may have with respect to which data is publicly available. Out-of-scope ============ To ensure that the task force remains narrowly focussed to ensure that its goal is reasonably achievable and withina reasonable time frame, it is necessary to be clear on what is not in scope for the task force. The task force should not examine the mechanisms available for anonymous publoic access of the data - this is the subject of a separate task force. The task force should not examine mechanisms for law enforcement access to the data collected. This is generally subject to existing local laws, and maybe the subject of a future task force. The task force should not study methods for fully anonymous registration (ie that the domain name holder will never be contactable) - this will be the subject of a separate task force. Tasks/Milestones ================ - for further work