+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