[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Mar 5 15:40:42 UTC 2014
Except for the moral authority that great ideas always provide....
:-)
On 2014-03-05, at 10:22 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> Carlton – while I might agree with your concepts just a gentle reminder – this group cannot have any sway over ccTLDs ..
>
>
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
> http://www.blacknight.co/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://www.technology.ie
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:04 PM
> To: Marika Konings
> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2
>
> .....Um, my understanding is that Marika was highlighting what would seem intuitive from the gitgo; a generic difficulty in accessing data related to privacy/proxy questions for cause.
>
> The intuit raised for P/P services should - or ought to - have forecast this; somebody somewhere has a need to obscure/place a barrier to access/discombobulate would be busybodies.
>
> In any event - and as Stephanie has raised so may times in my hearing - in places where the law compels a privacy regime on the registrar/registry, it hardly matters if the arena is ccTLD or gTLD controlled. What we must arrive at is a generic set of rules that embrace a consistent approach to embracing the privacy principle, consistent with law. And to the extent it advances the stability and security of the entire system, inclusive of ccTLDs and gTLDs.
>
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> I would like to encourage you all to review the whole quote from the Interisle report (see below) which places this specific sentence into context. It merely refers to the difficulty that may exist in verifying this claim independently due to the challenges that accuracy studies in a gTLD environment pose - it does not challenge whether P/P registration information is more accurate or not (as far as I understand). Again, please share the information about the other studies you are referring to so that these can be included as well.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marika
> Interviewees who represented providers of WHOIS privacy and proxy services claimed that the quality of the registrant data they hold for their customers is much better than for public WHOIS services in general. This seems credible because those providers tend to have a direct business relationship with their customers. However it is doubtful if these claims could be independently audited or verified. Assessing the accuracy of a representative sample of public WHOIS data is already very difficult. It would be far harder to do so for a representative sample of data protected by WHOIS privacy and proxy services. In its 2010 study of WHOIS data accuracy, NORC was able to assess the accuracy of privacy-registered domain information, but was not able to do the same for proxy-registered domains.
>
> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> Date: Wednesday 5 March 2014 14:47
>
> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2
>
> Hi Marika and All,
> I think the quote remains misleading in its context and placement. I recommend we a) delete it or b) clarify it and place it in context with explanatory text. For the bottom line is that regardless of the study drafters' personal opinions (and it is an opinion -- not what they were asked to study or prove in their study), it's wrong. Studies have been done; results have been found. If you protect people's/organization's privacy, the data they provide is more accurate. That's true of ccTLDs and gTLDs!
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
>
> So, more proposed edits to come!:
> To further clarify, the quote in Kathy's email ('it is doubtful if these claims could be independently audited or verified') is a direct quote from the Interisle Study. It may be important to distinguish here between a ccTLD study and a gTLD study of P/P registrations. The Nominet opt-out programme is managed by Nominet and has specific eligibility requirements, this makes it presumably easier to 1) get access to the underlying data and 2) verify whether the data is accurate or not, which does not seem to have been the case for studies that have focused on accuracy of gTLD registration data (also presumably because without an accreditation program it is even hard to identify whether or not the researcher dealing with a P/P service as well as getting access to the underlying customer data).
>
> However, as said before, if you have any additional data or studies that are relevant to this question, please share these so that they can be added to the template.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday 4 March 2014 16:07
> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>
> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2
>
> All, please note that the information in the background section are all direct quotes from the Whois studies, Whois Review Team report or other studies. If you have any other studies/references that would be helpful to include, please share these with the list and I will be happy to add these to the document.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marika
>
> On 4 mrt. 2014, at 15:49, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to Kathy
> I recall seeing multiple studies stating exactly the same thing
> If you respect privacy then people will provide better quality data
> It’s logical and obvious
>
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
> http://www.blacknight.co/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://www.technology.ie
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:46 PM
> To: Marika Konings; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2
>
> Marika, Tx you for checking with Lesley! But the results of that study were shared with the Whois Review Team, so the idea that "it is doubtful if these claims could be independently audited or verified" is not true. It has been checked - in this field and many others. People have less incentive to mislead when they know their interests (including privacy) are protected.
>
> I'm happy to work with you on finding additional studies, and summaries of studies, but the opinion in the paper does need to be updated or removed.
>
> Tx,
> Kathy
> :
> Kathy, on the Nominet study, please note the information in the updated template for Cat B question 2 that was circulated last week. (see attached). I reached out to Lesley Cowley last week and she informed me that unfortunately the study is not publicly available. However, should there be any specific questions in relation to the data on opt-out, she would be do her best to try and assist.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> Date: Tuesday 4 March 2014 14:23
> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2
>
> What Volker writes below makes sense to me, All. Provided the agreed upon 2013 RAA review of data has been done by someone, I don't see why we should duplicate it. The scope of our WG is p/p providers affiliated with registrars -- so coordination of the review of the data, per the ICANN rules, in conjunction with the Registrar makes perfect sense to me.
>
> As does a "no-privacy penalty." What we have found (Nominet and others -- BTW no one on staff reached out to me to help dig out this study, can we do that this week?) is that when people know their data is private and protected, it is more accurate. That makes sense and complies with government advice from all corners. Even the US Federal Trade Commission says not to give out your name and phone number in a way that is open and unprotected!
>
> So I think we are already headed towards more accurate data...
> Best,
> Kathy
> :
> Hi Steven,
>
> if we can limit that obligation to those cases where no validation of the underlying data has been performed by the registrar of record, we might be getting somewhere. An independent obligation that duplicates work already done will help no one and confuse many.
>
> Volker
>
>
> Am 03.03.2014 19:51, schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
> Thanks Volker. It is precisely because “the registrars obligation only extends to the registrant of record, not to anyone who may use the domain name with permission of that registrant,” that there should be an independent obligation on the part of the p/p service provider to validate its customer’s contact information.
>
> Steve.
>
>
>
> From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:32 AM
> To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] For review - updated templates Cat B, questions 1 and 2
>
> Hi Steven,
>
>
> Even when this assertion is relevant, it may not be persuasive, for a number of reasons. For example, the Whois data reminder obligation applies to the registrant of record. In the case of a proxy service, the registrant or record is the service, not its customer. If a Whois data reminder is sent to a non-proxy registrant and bounces back, then the RAA requires the registrar to re-verify. But a data reminder sent to a proxy service will almost never bounce back, and therefore there may be no RAA obligation to re-verify. This is so even if the customer data provided to the service is inaccurate or outdated. In this circumstance it is up to the p/p service accreditation standards to specify the conditions under which customer data must be re-verified.
>
> This depends on how the service is set up. One could suggest that if such required messages from the registrar do not reach the registrant, it could become the providers' obligation to perform the information requirements on its own. The registrar could then rely on the provider to perform its duties under the accreditation agreement with ICANN just at it performs its own obligations under the RAA.
>
> Please also remember that the registrars obligation only extends to the registrant of record, not to anyone who may use the domain name with permission of that registrant.
>
> V.
>
>
> --
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140305/c2c02f2b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list