Why should WHOIS data be used?

With the publication on the Internet, however, opens door to abuse.
Although the following notice is published by nic.at, but this refers mainly to the copyrights of nic.at in the WHOIS directory itself, is insufficient from a privacy perspective.

Particularly problematic is the compulsory publication of the well due to the widespread view of the law in Austria (since 1 January 2014 DPA) also determines the ruling of the Data Protection Commission: “Once published, is published for ever”. In §1 Act 2000 is excluded from legitimate confidentiality interests of published data breach.

This provision may well contradict the EU Data Protection Directive, in the opinion of the Working Party is expressly clarified that personal data continue to enjoy the protection of the Directive even after publication.

In particular, the use for purposes other than those originally specified without the consent of the individual concerned – in the specific case and having regard to the facts – not allowed.

In practice, it is likely to be impossible to prove that, for example, List broker or direct marketing companies use data from WHOIS directories. Therefore, it should be omitted entirely publication of personal data in such directories.

This is quite common in other countries: So the host provider could for example be entered in the WHOIS directory. This would ensure that the holder of a domain could be contacted in the event case.

The argument put forward again and again, so that the law enforcement example Domain disputes or (alleged) copyright infringement is difficult does not hold water. In the case of a corresponding method nic.at and the hosting provider to disclose to the court against the corresponding data are required.

Complicating would not provide the attempts of independent law enforcement by private companies founded by organizations. Such an approach, however, is based on past experience, as in the case of aggressive warning practice of individual lawyers, case “Novak” and general constitutional considerations already largely rejected.

Should we cancel the distribution of Whois information!

Why the database is illegal and useless


Lutz Donnerhacke is the representative of European Internet users WHOIS Review Team. Zoom is a nonprofit corporation under California law, by acclamation of the assets of the Internet (domain provider, domain operators, Internet service provider, address administrators and users) is responsible for establishing the technical operating parameters for a full connectivity. In particular, ICANN sets the rules for address and domain management and operates the root DNS server. In addition, ICANN is responsible for operating the legal development of rural areas.

Due to the acclamation refers ICANN and its right to exist only to have met solely from the fact, so far from the perspective of internet players no major mistakes. The decisions at ICANN meets on the basis of input from the Supporting Organizations (Supporting Organisations, SO) the “Board”. This is a group of people who may not be entrusted in personal union with other important tasks. The SO break down as a rule of lobby representatives (UC User Constituency). This process accompanying the advisory committees (AC, Advisory Committee) out by evidence from a cross position, but do not have a veto still a co-determination law or proposal.

ICANN was released in September 2009 from the supervision of the US Department of Commerce (Department of Commerce, DOC). The agreement reached this requires ICANN regular self-control in three areas:

Internal procedures “with emphasis on responsibility, accountability and consideration of the global user interests
“Technical Operation” with focus on security, stability and robustness
“Management of top-level domains” with emphasis on competition, consumer confidence and choice

The WHOIS Review

In this context, an independent review of the information service Whois is required explicitly. A broad-based review team to clarify the leveler substantive political issues with special emphasis on criminal prosecution and de consumers. For European users representation I am involved there.

The actual work proved pleasing design, even if I as a user agent does not have to take on industrial and law enforcement interests, not even to legal requirements into consideration.

Whois is in the common document defined by DOC and ICANN “as instantaneous and unrestricted public access to accurate and complete information about buyers, technical, accounting and legal contact” of all resources allocated hierarchically on the Internet. In particular relates to the domain names such as IP addresses.

Interestingly, the defined ICANN Whois service in more than 2009 report “Whois began as a lookup service between Internet operators to reach directly opposite each other in communication problems between servers.”

So far, a consensus was reached on the various concepts within the work group, you have to put any of the definitions to weigh. Thus the definition of “law enforcement” differs in three respects from the definition of Wikipedia:

“enforce” was to “maintain, co-ordinate” expanded, which also includes the legislator and the regulatory authorities.
“government agency” was replaced by “entity authorized by a government” to allow any firm that acts on behalf of a government agency.

“law” was to “multi-national treaty or government-imposed legal obligations” extended. This provides businesses in property and contract law cases from having the same rights as the police.