The reason for the Debate on Who Is Data is because the customers need to be protected from getting unwanted call during day or during night, the data available should not be a conduit for identity theft, scams, deceptive ads, and various other modes and methods being designed for rip-offs and the confusion increases in the case of IDNS and new gTLDs. Simultaneously there is a great requirement in case of issues, for data to be available for resolution of cases and in certain cases it might be in the cause of national interest. So following are the positions:
- The privacy commissioners as know in some countries and by what ever name the similar position will be known in India should have the broader access to the WhoIS data.
- People who are giving their data have the right to know what is happening with the data, the registrars who collect their data should be made liable in case of breach of privacy.
2013 RAA introduced new requirement for validation of whois data and primarily RFC 5322 should be the basis for validation of email addresses. Similarly telephone address needs to conform to ITU standards and Postal Code to UPU S42 standards. A pilot project can be taken wherein 100 new registrations are called back to by every registrar based on the information provided to find the quality of the WHO IS information being provided for DOT IN and that can be the basis of forming a relevant policy input from India.
Development of restful WHOIS open source server for domain name registries that can be used by registries or registrars as per the specification provided by WEIRDS working group in IETF which has produced RFC 7480 HTTP usage in Registration Data Access Protocol, (RDAP) & related RFC specifically RFc7485 for inventory and analysis of WHOIS registration objects should be implemented.
PSWG (Public Safety Working Group) is a new group formed under GAC in ICANN and had their first meeting in Jun-15 ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. It is expected that the members herein are people from national / provincial / state governments responsible for consumer protection, are part of civil and criminal law enforcement. The members should have detailed knowledge on DNS and working of Internet, policy issues around Internet governance and not necessarily the technical people of the government. As such the broader expectation is that the representatives in this working group should be able to relay the national legal framework around consumer protection and privacy in the context of Internet. This broadly enlarges the participation in ICANN beyond DietY, Government of India and simultaneously the onus of making the participants knowledgeable enough in ICANN workings lies with DeitY as the overall responsibility of managing ICANN lies with them.