[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Privacy/Proxy and spam/botnets
Bob Bruen
bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jan 20 19:53:38 UTC 2014
Hi Stephanie,
I believe I am responsible for the remark about "slowing down a process to
achieve a personal agenda." It was not aimed at you. Most of my criticisms
are reserved for the registrars :)
It was intended for those who slow things down as method of preventing
something, not for people who slow things down to think in a serious way
about a problem.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> This was discussed at some length at the EWG, and that was the conclusion. Part of the reason the EWG was set up was
> indeed to set a fresh look, and avoid paving the cow path, as the saying goes. (apologies to non-english speakers). Which
> brings me to the merits of multistakeholderism, and an earlier remark from someone (I forget whom and am not going to look
> it up) about personal agenda, and a purpose of stalling the process. While I am prepared to apologize daily for not
> understanding the intricacies of registration and business models of registrars of all types, I make no apology for
> intervening (and thus slowing any process) on matters where it appears I have expertise that could be lacking in the
> discussion. This expertise would include managing multi-stakeholder negotiations on matters of public policy in a domestic
> government setting, and in International government fora. It would also include data protection law, which is no less
> important than criminal or competition or IP law in the eyes of those who count on human rights law to protect the
> individual, and in the fabric of the constitution of many jurisdictions.
> I do hope that the remark about slowing down the process to achieve a personal agenda was not aimed at me; I am paid by
> noone and I am honestly trying to make sure ICANN does not do something really stupid here and thus collect more black marks
> on the multistakeholder model report card.
> respectfully,
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2014-01-20, at 1:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> Actually, FWIW, I don't think Whois data was intended to be public. When it was created, as part of the NSFNET,
> it was information shared in a trusted network among members of the trusted (and closed) network.
>
> Further, it was never personal or home information. Domain names were registered largely by universities, e.g.,
> Harvard.edu, and the Whois data was Scott Bradner's (Harvard IT) and other university IT office locations (and
> some government and military agencies) - in a closed network).
>
> The DNS then expanded broadly in the 1990s, NSF forwarded to the US Department of Commerce and then it was sent
> on to the new ICANN (someone has written about this transition and lack of evaluation of Whois as an academic
> piece; Milton I think).
>
> I've spoken with Scott Bradner about this...
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
>
> As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be
> public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that
> data. If you think that is extreme...
>
> BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private
> communication, etc.
>
> Volker
>
> Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen:
> Hi Volker,
>
> Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do.
> This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are.
> Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is
> way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
>
> It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access
> to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
>
> --bob
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
> No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy
> services, provided they are required to reveal such
> identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
>
> Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the
> other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive
> data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best
> left to LEAs into their own hands.
>
> There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not
> to have their full names and likenesses published.
> Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
>
> Volker
>
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I
> consider undermining whois a harm, as well
>
> --bob
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
> What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p
> have caused?
>
> On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen"
> <bruen at coldrain.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Volker,
>
> I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments
> about the difficulties, not advocating a
> position.
>
> However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring
> commercial entities from using p/p,
> because the use has already caused harm and we
> should fix that. The providers created
> the problem in the first place, so allowing them to
> continue to control it simply
> continues the problem.
>
> The discussion of all this is the point of this
> group (and other groups).
>
> --bob
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
> I agree that it would be possible to bar
> commercial entities from using p/p
> services, however I am not sure it is the
> sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is
> abuse, but by creating a blanket
> prohibition, i fear more damage will be done
> to
> legitimate interests than good is done to
> illegitimate ones.
> In the end it should be up to the provider
> which categories of clients it
> accepts.
> Volker
> Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> It is entirely possible to decide to bar
> commercial entities, create a
> definition of "comercial entities" and
> then deal with those which appear to
> problematical.
>
> The fraudsters probably will not be a set
> up as a legitimate bussiness,
> but their sites can be identified as
> spam, malware, etc types and thus taking
> money, therefore a business. I
> am sure there are other methods to deal
> with problem domain names.
>
> In general, exceptions or problems should
> not derail a process.
>
> --bob
>
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin
> wrote:
>
> I dont want to keep beating a dead
> horse here....but if there is
> a resounding
> response of "yes indeed, bar
> commercial entities from using P/P
> services", then
> how are you going to propose that
> p/p proxy service providers
> determine who is a
> commercial entity, particularly in
> jurisdictions which have
> declined to regulate
> the provision of goods and services
> over the Internet? I don't
> like asking
> questions that walk us into corners
> we cannot get out of. Do the
> fraudsters we
> are worried about actually apply
> for business numbers and
> articles of
> incorporation in the jurisdictions
> in which they operate? I
> operate in a
> jurisdiction where this distinction
> is often extremely difficult
> to make. THe
> determination would depend on the
> precise use being made of the
> domain
> name....which gets ICANN squarely
> into content analysis, and
> which can hardly be
> done for new registrations, even if
> t were within ICANN's remit.
> I am honestly
> not trying to be difficult, but I
> just have not heard a good
> answer to this
> problem.
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly
> Raiche wrote:
>
> Jin and all
> I agree with Jim here (and Don
> earlier). The important task here
> is
> agreeing on the questions to be
> asked of the SO/ACs. So we need
> to get
> back to framing the questions - not
> answering them, however
> tempting that
> may be.
>
> So the question of whether
> 'commercial entities' should be barred
> is still
> a useful question to ask. The next
> question would be whether
> there are
> possible distinctions that should
> be drawn between an entity that
> can use
> the service and one that can't and,
> if so, where is the line
> drawn. I agree
> with the discussion on how
> difficult that will be because many
> entities
> that have corporate status also
> have reasonable grounds for
> wanting the
> protection of such a service (human
> rights organisations or
> women's refuges
> come to mind). But that is the
> sort of response we are seeking
> from
> others outside of this group - so
> let's not prejudge answers.
> Let's only
> frame the questions that will help
> us come to some sensible
> answers.
> Otherwise, we'll never get to the
> next steps.
>
> And my apologies for the next
> meeting. I have a long day ahead
> on
> Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking
> calls at 2.00am won't help.
> So Ill read
> the transcript and be back in a
> fortnight (2 weeks for those who
> do not use
> the term)
>
> Holly
>
> On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim
> Bikoff wrote:
>
> Don and all,
>
> As we suggested earlier, and
> discussed in the last Group
> teleconference, it might be
> helpful, as a next step, if we
> reached a
> consensus on the groups of
> questions before sending them out to
> SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
>
> This would involve two steps:
> First, agreeing on the name of each
> group; and second, streamlining the
> questions in each group.
>
> In the first step, we could
> consider alternative headings
> (perhaps
> REGISTRATION instead of
> MAINTENANCE).
>
> And in the second step, we could
> remove duplicative or vague
> questions.
>
> This crystallization would make the
> questions more approachable,
> and
> encourage better responses.
>
> I hope these ideas are helpful.
>
> Best,
>
> Jim
>
> James L. Bikoff
> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
> 1101 30th Street, NW
> Suite 120
> Washington, DC 20007
> Tel: 202-944-3303
> Fax: 202-944-3306
> jbikoff at sgbdc.com
>
>
>
> From: Don Blumenthal
> <dblumenthal at pir.org>
> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM
> EST
> To: PPSAI
> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
> Carlton's closing chat question
> Carlton posted an issue that
> shouldn’t wait a week:
>
> “John came up with 4 groups. Do we
> have a notion that others
> might be extracted? And where do
> we include/modify questions
> to address Stephanie's issue?"
>
> Jim had four groups and an umbrella
> Main category, which may be
> instructive in itself in guiding
> how we proceed
> organizationally. Regardless, the
> consensus of commenters has
> been that his document is a
> significant improvement over where
> we were before, and I suggest that
> we use it as a baseline.
> However, we still have work to do
> on it. Feel free to suggest
> modifications.
>
> Don
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing
> list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
> --
> Dr. Robert Bruen
> Cold Rain Labs
> http://coldrain.net/bruen
> +1.802.579.6288
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
--
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list