ICANN São Paulo meeting site

I just noticed this (actually thanks to the Technorati feed on the right) - which I think basically summarises how the average Internet user sees the Whois.

http://www.benrichards.co.uk/?p=123

Full post below:

"Wondering around the net yesterday I came across a link to search the ICANN database. ICANN stores all your information about your domain name and freely puts this information up on the web. This data includes many things about your domain but it also includes who it is registered too and where they live etc . . .

"Now this wasn

I think the problem with the Whois discussion is that people are trying to imagine all the scenarios before they make a decision. It is no wonder the discussion has gone on for years with no resolution.

What needs to be done is put in a logical framework and new solutions will grow to fill the spaces. Because domain names are so easy to get hold of and so cheap, you can't expect law enforcement to get a court order every time. It is total impractical.

But what about the scenario you outline above?

I am certain that there would be an immediate market opportunity for a company to set itself up and promise people anonymity unless they receive a court order. They then set up in a country that respect individuals' rights so getting a court order is subject to due process.

This is already happening anyway - Network Solutions and GoDaddy offer anonymising services. If you open this up, people can be more open and bring competition into that market.

Kieren

I'm still skeptical about whether there is a market for selling domain names to dissidents in Zimbabwe or Iran using any reasonable payment system available in those markets. On the other hand, most of these people use free services which are vulnerable to subpoena so it's not like they have very good anonymity at this point anyway... however, I think we need to be aware that one government's "criminal" is another person's "freedom fighter".

But I do agree that a market driven solution would be a good thing. However, don't you think that if a practical market driven solution were created, it would have to be available to authorities in the same way whois is? I can't imagine that a "loophole" would be allowed to be created. Although I guess it could possibly move this discussion to another venue and off ICANN's plate.

Again, I'm not doubting the need of authorities to have information about criminals. I'm just wary about having to say "which" authorities are considered "good" authorities in a global Internet.

Well this is what's really at issue here: how much ICANN can or should influence what is done with and over the Net, and how much responsibility ICANN should feel in defending freedom of speech and so on.

ICANN is made up of a very small group people with pretty much the same outlook on life. But with the Net having become what it is, there are growing pains. Should ICANN be putting in place procedures simply because they will have the effect of promoting the democratic perspective of life: freedom of speech, protection from authority and so on?

Or should ICANN be acting as the impartial technical body at the top of the Net - making sure things work but not trying to impact on how different countries across the world use the technology?

I think with Whois you have hit on a problem where people are trying to push cultural belief through technical approaches. It's only natural, but as has been seen, it isn't getting anywhere. In fact, by the GAC effectively killing an agreement reached in the GNSO, it risks putting ICANN's very processes at risk.

Instead it might be useful to get back to basics and ask simple questions and go with the answers.

* Is there any need for Whois information to be made publicly and freely available? Answer: No.
* Are they disadvantages to having Whois information publicly and freely available? Yes. Privacy, spam, ID theft.
* Does keeping Whois information entirely private has disadvantages? Yes. Criminal activity on the Net would be unnecessarily protected.
* Should the authorities be able to gain access to that information then? Yes. It is in society's greater good.

And then the big question:

* How do we decide what authorities are entitled to see Whois?

To which the startlingly simple answer is: that is not for ICANN to decide or even attempt to decide. It is up to each country to decide, and ICANN will accept what each country's government says are authorised users.

It could easily be that American IP interests are then able to lobby the US government and have the government define trademark lawyers as an authorised users. That is where the fight should be fought though. Not in ICANN. Not any longer.

A lot depends on who law enforcement is, how that's verified, and what they want the information for. ICANN is not equipped to make those decisions and distinctions.

Further, in the offline world, we often put "barriers" in the way of law enforcement -- requiring them to get warrants, subpoenas, or court orders before obtaining information they claim is necessary, and requiring a court judgment before taking rights away from an alleged wrongdoer. These checks, by a neutral judiciary or giving the accused an opportunity to respond, help prevent abuses of power. Why should online be different?