[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Privacy/Proxy and spam/botnets
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Jan 20 20:57:27 UTC 2014
Thanks, I am vastly reassured and shall ready my stick to thrust into the spokes of the wheel afresh!
cheers Stephanie
On 2014-01-20, at 2:53 PM, Bob Bruen wrote:
>
> 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