ICANN Sacrifices Privacy for Shot at Independence |
| Print | |
|
Monday October 09, 2006
|
|||||
|
Appeared in the Toronto Star on October 9, 2006 as Web's Naming Body Barters Away Privacy Appeared in the BBC on October 10, 2006 as Internet Privacy 'Sacrified" By ICANN Internet governance has attracted increasing attention in recent years as governments, business communities, and Internet users struggle to develop a model that adequately takes into account the concerns of all stakeholders. At the center of this debate is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based non-profit corporation charged with the principal responsibility for maintaining the Internet's domain name system. ICANN stated that the agreement grants it unprecedented independence by removing many of the U.S. government’s oversight controls. These include the elimination of a twice-annual reporting requirement to the U.S. Department of Commerce (ICANN will instead release a single annual report targeted to the full Internet community) and a shift away from the highly prescriptive policy responsibilities featured in the original ICANN contract. The implications of this clause seem clear - the U.S. government has undone five years of policy work that the Internet community has undertaken by requiring ICANN to enforce current WHOIS policies. As discontent over the WHOIS issue mounted late last week, ICANN CEO Paul Twomey offered a strained interpretation of the clause, suggesting that he did not believe that it restricted future WHOIS reforms. Comments (2)
![]()
Neil Schwartzman
said:
|
|||||
|
... Of course, 'owning' a domain name is a poriviledge not a right, and far from a neccessity and there are plenty of registrars that offer a clocking service for a few bucks more than the cost of the yearly domain fees. Blocking out all domain registrants will hinder in the investigations by many volunteer network abuse investigators whose work makes up the lions share of the efforts, and without which the spam/virus/spyware load would go through the roof. For every example I can think of where there is an absolute need for a private whois record, I can supply about 100,000 examples of why spammers and other network abusers will be the first to avail themselves of that service if it is made the defacto standard. Yes, they enter intentionally erroneous data, but that do so in a patterned way which an experienced investigator can tie to a real person. 100,000 would be 100 days worth of spam that hits my inbox, by the way. Yes, really. |
|
... Mr. Geist, good article. Mr. Schartzman, seek help. Perhaps in time you'll learn to think in a patterned way that a reasonable person can tie to the real world. The information in the Whois database should be private and require the likes of a court order to obtain. Investigators would be able to obtain a spammer's info just as easily as anyone else's. There is no reason to treat it any differently than the customer information stored by an ISP. |