The SMH tech section has picked up on an ongoing debate about the whois service & what it should contain.  ICANN was accepting submissions on a new set of proposals on how the whois database should work up until 00:00 UTC 30th Oct 2007 (that was 10:30am AEDST yesterday).

So what’s the actual issue?  Wendy Seltzer has a good run-down on her site:

The specifics of the current debate, apart from the substanceless comments filling the forums, is a proposal to allow domain registrants to substitute an “Operational Point of Contact,” or OPOC, in the public listing. While all their private information would still be collected, it need not be published. Instead, the OPOC would route messages to the right recipient, for operational, technical, or legal inquiries. Thus OPOC would simultaneously make WHOIS a better technical contact resource and improve domain registrants’ privacy options. Even OPOC doesn’t go so far as I would like — I’d allow anonymous registrations, rather than insisting that data be collected if not displayed — but it’s better than the status quo.

You can see the forum comments here. They’re full of submissions from commercial lawyers, IP lobbyists & the like, all pushing for the adoption of motion 2.  Motion 2 can be found in this pdf on page 9.  Here it is in all its legalese glory:

WHEREAS: 
1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the Working Group report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by Working Group participants and ICANN staff. 

2. The GNSO Council does not consider the Working Group report as an adequate basis for any implementation of the Operational Point of Contact (OPOC) proposal, due to the inability to reach agreement on a number of key issues identified in the charter of the Working Group. 

3. The GNSO Council notes that no comprehensive, objective study has yet been made of key factual issues regarding the WHOIS system, and that future ICANN policymaking could greatly benefit from the results of such a study.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 
1. The GNSO Council thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the GNSO’s examination of WHOIS policy over the last four years.

2. Building on the work done in response to paragraph (c) of the GNSO Council Resolution #3 of September 6, 2007, the Council requests that ICANN staff take the necessary steps to proceed with a comprehensive, objective study on the issues identified by the WHOIS Working Group, by the Governmental Advisory Committee in its statement of principles on WHOIS, and by the Council. These issues include the characteristics of gTLD registrants, the uses and abuses of WHOIS data, and a review and analysis of the different proxy services available today. Specifically, the Council directs the staff to present for its review a draft Request for Proposals for such a study, including a proposed budget and timeline, and a methodology for outreach to knowledgeable parties, within 90 days from the date of adoption of this resolution. 

3. The GNSO Council will take the results of this study, once completed, into account in deciding on the next steps in WHOIS policy development. 

Clear as mud?  As far as I can tell, that basically means ‘do nothing’.  Leave the whois database as it is & start a whole new review process.  Motion 1 (also on page 9) seems to be about changing whois into a listing of operational contacts, without personal information like addresses and phone numbers of individuals.

Motion 3 (page 10) is talking about introducing a ’sunset’ clause.  This seems to be the motion that the SMH article is talking about.  This seems to be basically drop the current system & start from scratch. From the SMH article:

Ross Rader, a member of ICANN’s generic names council and the sunset proposal’s chief sponsor, said many negotiators are stalling because they prefer the status quo, which gives them the access to Whois that they desire.

An executive with domain registration company Tucows, Rader said he is just trying to break the deadlock and doesn’t necessarily want the databases to disappear.

"What removing the status quo will do is force all of the actors to come together without the benefit of a status quo to fall back on and say, ‘We are now all screwed. What will we do?’" Rader said. "It will lead to better good-faith negotiations."

Think of it as saving the system by breaking it first.

Interesting idea.

So what’s the solution? I’ve always thought providing my email address, phone number and address in a public database is insane, especially when I go to such lengths to remain fairly private otherwise.

But I can also see that it’s useful to be able to find who is actually owning a particular site, but of course there’s nothing stopping someone from filling in fake information when they buy a domain.  And I guess that’s part of the point too: the global whois databases are full of bogus data. That doesn’t help anyone.

There’s nothing up on the ICANN homepage yet about any discussions on the submissions, so I guess it’s going to be a case of wait-and-see.  Honestly I can’t see ICANN recommending any major changes, there really doesn’t seem to be the consensus.

If you’re interested it’s worth checking out some of these related posts & articles: