Re: [nc-whois] Separate Privacy Issues Report

["Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>]

Ruchika,

Thank you for this very interesting document. I 
also take note of the distance you are taking from
the Whois Task Force work and recommendations.

In reading your submission, I have some initial
comments to make:

2.4 "Does one size fits all make sense?"
I agree that some "individuals may have legitimate
reasons for anonymous speech", Osama Bin Laden
and similar minded terrorists are an adequate example?
Those victims of persecution that require anonimity can
surely find safe haven in human rights organization
websites to present their views?
"Does it make sense to impose a rule ...." The
registration of gTLD domain names is provided by
business enterprises, it is not a public utility. This
brings us to Bruce Tonkin's point that it is the
display of data that needs re-evaluation, not the
necessity of collecting it.

3.1 OECD Privacy guidelines
"Collection Limitation". I beleive it is most
certainly necessary to collect telephone and
fax numbers, as this facilitates contact with
the registrant for legitimate purposes -
notifying him of domain name expiry (if the
registrant does not respond to e-mail),
verifying contact data as being accurate, in
cases where this is required,  facilitating
law enforcement activities, etc. Once again
(sigh) it is a matter of what data is publicly
displayed, not what data is collected?

"Data Quality"
The Task Force recommendations on accuracy
would appear to be in agreement with the OECD
stipulation on accuracy?

"Purpose Specification"
Your argument here is unclear to me.

"Use Limitation"
I beleive the Task Force addressed this issue
in Bulk Access recommendations?

"Security Safeguards"
This is a valid issue on privacy. You could have
included it in our group work?

"Openness"
An interesting suggestion, that could also be part
of the group report?

"Individual Participation"
This stipulation, by your admission, is currently
satisfactorily addressed?

"Accountability"
Is it written into registrar/registry contractual 
agreements with ICANN that the handling
of Whois data should be in compliance with
OECD Privacy Guidelines principles?

Obviously your constituency is not satisfied with
the work of the Whois Task Force. Hence,
since your constituency was always enabled
to participate in the TF, you are part of the
failure you are proclaiming?

Kind regards

Tony Harris
Co-Chair








----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ruchika Agrawal" <agrawal@epic.org>
To: "NC-WHOIS (E-mail)" <nc-whois@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:52 AM
Subject: [nc-whois] Separate Privacy Issues Report


> Dear Co-Members of the WHOIS Task Force:
> 
> FYI - the non-commercial constituency is submitting a separate privacy 
> issues report (please see attachment).
> 
> Sincerely,
> Ruchika Agrawal
> Non-Commercial Constituency
> WHOIS Task Force
>