[bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Draft BC comments on new study of privacy/proxy abuse
john at crediblecontext.com
john at crediblecontext.com
Fri Nov 1 16:47:01 UTC 2013
Welcome to the party.
As for use cases, I have found them useful in sales settings, but I think they cause more problems than they solve in policy matters. We ought to be focused on outcomes -- what we don't want to happen, what we do want to happen -- and allow for some creativity/innovation in making it happen. Of course, such an outcomes-based regime demands there be oversight and penalties. It is ICANN's falling short on the oversight that makes prescriptive use cases seem a good choice, but I prefer we hold out.
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Draft BC comments on new study of privacy/proxy abuse
From: "Chen, Tim" <tim at domaintools.com>
Date: 10/31/13 2:54 pm
To: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
Cc: "bc-gnso at icann.org" <bc-gnso at icann.org>
The Whois Privacy and Proxy issue is enormously important to the safety and security (not so sure about 'stability') of the Internet, something we're meant to care a lot about. Being new, I'm still not clear how this study dovetails with the ARDS work where, it appears, actual change can be manifested.
But an area I'd like to see more clarity in is the use-cases where privacy is important for the 'legitimate' registrants. I only ever hear about two: free speech and not-tipping-your-hat about new products. It seems if we could outline specific use cases, we could at least try to solve for them. For example, at the risk of this being stupid rather than clever, couldn't it be a possible solution to the latter that privacy registration is allowed so long as the domain isn't put live into DNS? i.e. no nameserver. Amazon can go register or buy all its "Kindle" domain names a year ahead of launch, and just sit on them until go-live, at which point privacy goes away and their actual contact info is shown for those domains that are delegated into DNS.
Our clients are increasingly in the network security and threat investigation realm. Their voice is very relevant for the BC. Speaking for them if I may, whois privacy is one of their biggest consternations, and is a huge hurdle between being able to defend and investigate, and being left powerless.
Anyway, thanks to Elisa and Susan. I only made it through the Exec Summary of that doc (62 pages!?), and know that whois has a long history as in issue within the ICANN constituencies, so apologies if this is old hat. If nothing else, I'm 110% behind make progress on whois privacy and proxy.
Looking forward to meeting everybody in Buenos Aires.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:
During last 2 BC member calls and in the 3-Oct email below, we called for volunteers to draft a BC comment on the new independent Study of Whois Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse. (link)
Fortunately, Elisa Cooper and Susan Kawaguchi volunteered to review the study and draft our comments.
The first draft is attached, giving BC members 12 days to review and comment before the 11-Nov deadline.
Please REPLY ALL with any questions or suggestions.
Thanks again to Elisa and Susan for taking the lead.
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
Date: Friday, October 4, 2013 11:09 AM
To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com>, Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com>
Cc: BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm at icann.org>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>
Subject: Business Constituency comments on new study of privacy/proxy abuse
On today's BC call, we talked about the new independent Study of Whois Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse.
The BC advocated for this study several years ago. And these Results verify BC suspicion that bad actors use P/P to avoid identification. But there are many important findings here, and we need volunteers to analyze and draft BC comments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso