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 position of 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...