No Such Weblog

John Klensin points out that whois data in strange languages may quite well kill port 43 whois, and notes that that protocol has outlived its useful life. Some panel discussion about what languages should be where, and about experience in China.

A large group of NGOs, lead by EPIC, has sent a letter to ICANN that emphasizes the need for moving forward on WHOIS privacy.

The letter suggests a number of useful and important principles for dealing with WHOIS. The most critical one: The purposes for which domain name holders' personal data may be collected and published in the WHOIS database have to be specified; they should, as a minimum, be legitimate and compatible to the original purpose for which this database was created; and this original purpose cannot be extended to other purposes simply because they are considered desirable by some users of the WHOIS database.

It's somewhat unfortunate that the authors of this letter have given in to the very temptation they warn about: In the next bullet point, they suggest that combatting spam should be the most relevant purpose for collecting WHOIS data.

I was on the data element review panel of today's WHOIS Workshop. Unfortunately, that panel was chartered to look at things from a data user point of view only, without space for the data subject perspective.

The brief summary is that the usual statements were made.

The slightly longer summary: Bruce Tonkin reported about the current data element situation. Jane Mutimear gave the IP perspective, recycling some slides from the Montreal workshop. Marilyn Cade told a story about an abuse case. David Maher noted that registries don't need personal WHOIS information. I complained a bit about the lack of registrant perspective, pointed to the ALAC's new WHOIS statement, and noted that individual Internet users really don't have essential WHOIS uses, and that existing uses can easily be covered by some kind of person directory where information is entered voluntarily. Tom Keller noted that registrar mostly need WHOIS for transfers. Brian Cute confirmed that, and gave some customer quotes on WHOIS privacy.

The NCUC's Kathy Kleiman made the case for registrant privacy, and suggested that a technical contact should essentially be the only thing published in the WHOIS; this technical contact could then be someone at an ISP, not the individual itself.

We're two almost three hours into the GNSO Council session now. After long debate, the GNSO Council has adopted moderately updated versions of the Terms of Reference that the WHOIS Steering Committee had generated, and has also agreed to kick off all three Task Forces at this time.

Ultimately, all council members except the ISPCP representatives voted in favor.

new gTLDs (PDP initiation moved by Milton Mueller) unanimously deferred until next meeting.

Lengthy discussion of STLD (non-) RFP under AOB, and how sharply the Council should phrase a possible resolution on that topic. "Concern and ask for clarification" or more? Wording suggestions. Dan Halloran at the microphone. Points to oct 13 board minutes. Emphasize bottom-up nature. Commitment?^*

Resolution is drafted on the fly and adopted unanimously: Council requests clarification and is concerned that board may have made decision in gTLD policy area without consulting council.

UDRP is deferred for the time being. Expenditure authorization to GNSO secretariat. Enforcement of contracts scheduled for another meeting.

Disclosure: I participated in the council session as the ALAC liaison to the council.

^*) Stricken on 2003-11-02.