RE: [nc-whois] Tucows Comments on the WHOIS TF Final Report

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Title: Message

Marilyn,

 

With all due respect, this is something I have been posting and saying not once but a multitude of times.

 

no matter how we look upon it, we have only served those industries mentioned in a broader perspective, not only Tucows has that point of view, many of the other posters in comments share that view.

 

we can try and stay focussed, which of course we will do, but we should not forget or ignore these comments, perhaps we should even make that a starting point for our discussion.

 

We have agreed on doing privacy now, so perhaps we can rekindle that part of the discussion that contained the definitions we would or should give to "those who have a need for access" "those who want access" "those who should have access"  and add to that the question of serving what purpose with that access.

added questions in my opinion would be what other venues are open to obtain the data they search, what is the comparison to the brick and mortar world and where do we clash with law, political opinion and public opinion.

 

In my opinion we should first build that foundation before we start discussing possible solutions to keep it open, half open, semi-open paid open or whatever, perhaps we come to a conclusion that there should be other data freely available and the remainder never.

 

kind regards

 

abel

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
Sent: 24 February 2003 13:34
To: Ram Mohan; NC-WHOIS (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Tucows Comments on the WHOIS TF Final Report

One thing that concerns me also is that it is "easy" but also unfair to characterize all concerns about keeping WHOIS available as driven by trademark, patent, and copyright lobbies. Consumers use WHOIS to see who is behind a web site their child visits, businesses check out suppliers, etc. Privacy issues for a business, or an organization, or someone who is conducting commerce on the Internet may be very different than someone who is indeed an individual.   As a  Task Force, let's keep an

open mind as we examine the issues related to privacy and WHOIS, and try to stay focused on our task of looking at the range of questions.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Mohan [mailto:rmohan@afilias.info]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:20 AM
To: NC-WHOIS (E-mail)
Subject: [nc-whois] Tucows Comments on the Whois TF Final Report

I just ran into this and walked away surprised that the entire report would be desupported due to one component that was clearly planned to be addressed.

-ram

Tucows Comments on the Whois TF Final Report

Posted by ross at February 17, 2003 12:07 PM

To get completely to the point, we don't support the report because it misses its mark.

The brief summary is:

- We reject the report because it decouples the primary issue of privacy from the secondary issues and therefore unduly benefits the trademark, copyright and patent lobbies.
- there are some portions of the report that we support.
- there are some portions of the report that we don't support
- All of these portions must be dealt with in the context of privacy and regard for the customer, not the lawyers.