ICANN participation

Karl Auerbach once observed on his Cavebear Blog the following regarding the fervor to prevent privacy within the whois name space:

...we all know that one of the unspoken reasons driving the industrial groups that support whois open access and deprecate privacy is to facilitate data mining.

It is indeed unspoken when ICANN holds forth about the requirement for whois database accuracy and its determination to enforce accuracy by as of yet established or even stated legal mechanisms.

ICANN has made it a point to threaten registrars with loss of accreditation if the latter do not themselves enforce the accuracy of registrant personal data in their whois database. They aver that they will go after domain name registrants who refuse to comply to the accuracy mandate. Why would they want such a thing, if not simply to maintain the availability of such private data to corporate interests and other such riff-raff?

If ICANN were truly, genuinely interested in seeing to accuracy for accuracy sake, they would have long ago done the right thing, viz., make the data in the whois database exclusively a matter between the registrar and registrant. If the data were in this way kept private between these direct parties involved in the domain name registration, there would be no incentive to leave registrant data inaccurate. Problem would be solved. The fact that ICANN has not seen fit to make this change in whois policy only underscores the real motive behind the current policy of open access to private data, to serve aforementioned riff-raff.

Here's the policy change Karl Auerbach suggested on the same site:

So, in summary, it is my belie[f], based on established principles of privacy, that the existing whois system should be terminated. It should be replaced by systems of records that exist as private data between a name registrant and the registrar and which are used solely to promote the relationship between the registrant and the registrar. (I am intentionally avoiding delving into the split personality manifested by the ICANN mandated system in which a cloud of front-office registrars envelops a back end database "registry" operator.)

It is possible to address the issues raised by aggrieved third parties without undoing such a private relationship, notes Karl:

In parallel to this closed whois system there would need to be established a fast and inexpensive magisterial process. Anyone who believes that their rights are being violated would be required to make a minimal demonstration that such a belief is supported by a reasonable amount of concrete evidence. Upon making such a showing, the requested whois records would be disclosed, but only for the limited purpose of further processes to resolve the dispute. I am not here dealing with questions of the nature of that magisterial process. I am not dealing with questions such as whether the data subject has the right to receive notice and the right to present a rebuttal. However, whatever the process, it is necessary that the accusing party fully identify itself, and the fact that such a process occurred and the name of the accusing individual ought, as a matter of fairness, be available to the data subject.

I strongly recommend that ICANN take up the issues raised in this post. As far as I can tell, based on papers stored on their web site, ICANN are not as serious about accuracy so much as they are about preserving a policy that was never intended for what is now known as the Internet, with millions of names distributed around the world. The policy, when it originated, long before ICANN came along, was deemed acceptable for the small group of people involved. It was then an exclusive club, after all. ICANN inherited this policy, but made no effort to change it with the changing circumstances, the exclusive club a distant memory. We know implicitly why ICANN have not done anything about it. This, rather than the whois database, is something that needs to be got out in the open and resolved as soon as possible.