Hi Kathy, For a moment, imagining what it would be like if I were the labelled 'bad guy' to be vanquished both online and real life? Thus grounded on below advise from my colleague Henry, I pray for us to all think from The Original Position and choose to preserve individual registrant's privacy on WHOIS data. thanks, Alex ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Henry Maina <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:30 AM Subject: RE: Thinking from the original position To: Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]> The Original Position is a central feature in John Rawls' social contract account of justice as fairness set forth in A Theory of Justice It is designed to fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. It is the positionof a free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. Its distinguishing feature is the veil of ignorance: to ensure impartiality of judgement , the parties are denied knowledge of their personal characteristics, social and historical circumstances. See a book called A theory of Justice by John Rawls HENRY O. MAINA DIRECTOR ARTICLE 19 KENYA/EASTERN AFRICA P O BOX 2653,00100 NAIROBI TEL:+254 (20) 3862230/2 FAX:+254 (20) 3862231 EMAIL: [log in to unmask] On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > *Hi All,* > > *Great thanks to Amr for the first draft of comments to the **Thick Whois > PDP Working Group. As you know, the question on the table is whether a > “thick Whois model” – one in which all Whois data is held and made > available by the Registry (e.g., Verisign) and not the Registrar – should > be the model for all existing and all new gTLDs.* > > *For .COM, it's a huge issue. It is a “thin” registry, and 100 million+ > Whois records are stored by the registrar pursuant to local laws (including > local privacy and free speech laws). Whether we can convert these 100 > million+ records to a single database – and whether we want to – are > questions for this group.* > > *Further, the issue of “Whois” data, service and protocol are all up in > the air. If someday we reach agreement that this very personal data – that > can expose individuals and organizations to threat for what they say and > share online (including political, religious and ethnic minority views and > dissent, including non-commercial activity) – should be private, then a > single centralized Registry Whois database creates a single point of > access. That means that should Registries be cozy with their local > governments, all of this data may be relinquished without due process, or > even subject to criminal laws that are non-standard in the world (e.g., > Syria, N.Korea, China).* > > *The fact is that registrants know their registrars and it is to their > registrars that the Whois information is provided. Most registrants will > think they are protected under those rules. Despite the fact that New gTLDs > (for this round, at least) require a centralized Whois – with the Registry > – I remain deeply concerned about the consolidation of the massive .COM > Whois (if it's even legal – see below) and the standard set for all future > registries and TLDs – regardless of their political, social, or religious > uses.* > > * > If NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on – with thanks! > > Best, Kathy Kleiman (veteran of far too many Whois task forces and > review teams...) > p.s. All of Amr's comments kept, and I added on and filled in some > sections... * >