[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Article 29 Working Party to ICANN

Fri Dec 8 01:03:55 UTC 2017

Having lived through the caller ID debates back in the 90s, I can 
certainly provide a number of examples of instances where people needed 
to not be wearing their name on someone else's phone.  Medical clinics 
of all kinds, suicide prevention centres, women's shelters, hotlines, 
etc.  There is a big difference between refusing to accept a call if you 
don't recognize the name on the display, (bearing in mind that caller ID 
does not block the core, just the display) and rejecting all traffic 
through a server if it is not identified.  Noone is suggesting that 
tiered access would not be possible here.

But there is really no point in arguing this anymore.  Your servers, 
your rules.  The Internet has become the backbone of global commerce, 
and if you think that maxim will last then who am I to argue.  You guys 
are running the system and if those of us who think it is unfair to end 
users don't like it, we can always go back to the postal service (for a 
few years at least, until it gets replaced by drones operated through 
the Internet....)

SP

On 2017-12-07 17:46, Rod Rasmussen wrote:
> Indeed, the old adage is, "my network, my rules."
>
> One could argue that depending on the legal regime you are under where 
> some strong form of “net neutrality” actually exists, then some public 
> networks (telcos/residential ISPs) could be compelled in such a 
> manner.  Private networks, military networks, even government networks 
> that are not tied to public inputs cannot be compelled to accept 
> anyone's traffic regardless of rational.
>
> For an imperfect analogy, I never, ever answer a call when the caller 
> ID says, “User Unknown” or the equivalent, i.e. someone asserting 
> their privacy rights and not providing me with the opportunity to 
> understand who may be trying to communicate with me. I sure wouldn’t 
> want someone to force me to do so just because they feel they should 
> be able to reach me even if they refuse to tell me who they are.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rod
>
>> On Dec 7, 2017, at 2:30 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg 
>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
>>
>> You seem to be under the impression you (or anyone else) has the 
>> right to have their traffic accepted on my network. Where does this 
>> notion come from?
>>
>> On 12/07/2017 04:24 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>
>>> This may be a likely outcome, but it merely strengthens my argument 
>>> that some kind of regulatory action is required to ensure that those 
>>> who have the power to block traffic do so only for legitimate 
>>> reasons. Blocking traffic for individuals who utilize their data 
>>> protection rights is totally unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-12-07 17:20, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Consent is likely an avenue for those registrants that want to be 
>>>> RDS-listed in order to gain trust among Internet users. 
>>>>  Hypothetical scenario: default is not being publicly-listed, and 
>>>> then people start blocking domains massively. In such a scenario, 
>>>> registrants that want more reach and trust from end-users, might 
>>>> want to consent to being publicly-listed. As long as lack of 
>>>> consent doesn't prevent service from contracted parties, it might 
>>>> be useful and I think we should consider this angle when time comes 
>>>> in the PDP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rubens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 7 Dec 2017, at 20:05, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com 
>>>>> <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the requirements for consent are demanding does not 
>>>>> mean that we should not consider it in our deliberations on access 
>>>>> when we get there in our work.  I doubt that a consent process 
>>>>> will suffice by itself in solving access issues but it is 
>>>>> certainly one avenue that the letter pointed out as a possible 
>>>>> avenue.  I think we will need to explore that further when we 
>>>>> deliberate on access.  For now, let’s focus on purposes and in 
>>>>> particular Domain Name Management as a purpose.
>>>>> Chuck
>>>>> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg 
>>>>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Ayden 
>>>>> Férdeline
>>>>> *Sent:*Thursday, December 7, 2017 12:42 PM
>>>>> *To:*John Bambenek <jcb at bambenekconsulting.com 
>>>>> <mailto:jcb at bambenekconsulting.com>>
>>>>> *Cc:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Article 29 Working Party to ICANN
>>>>> No, not necessarily. The criteria for obtaining valid, 
>>>>> freely-given consent is demanding, and one cannot be asked to 
>>>>> consent to processing that is otherwise unlawful. We were told in 
>>>>> the first legal memo from WSGR that consent is not a silver bullet 
>>>>> here.
>>>>> — Ayden
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Article 29 Working Party to ICANN
>>>>>> Local Time: 7 December 2017 8:18 PM
>>>>>> UTC Time: 7 December 2017 20:18
>>>>>> From:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>> To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net 
>>>>>> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. The latter clearly says that 
>>>>>> consent in the current system is not clearly given. If a domain 
>>>>>> holder had the free and informed option to publish information in 
>>>>>> whois or not THIS ISSUE IS SOLVED.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> John Bambenek
>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2017, at 17:59, Volker Greimann 
>>>>>> <vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Michele,
>>>>>>> I read this a final and very clear warning from the European 
>>>>>>> DPAs to ICANN and its contracted parties to stop messing about 
>>>>>>> and start getting ready in time for May 25. The references to 
>>>>>>> previous notices make it very clear that there will be no 
>>>>>>> consideration given after that date. While the letter contains 
>>>>>>> nothing new to anyone who has paid any attention, it is very 
>>>>>>> clear in its message: Public Whois is illegal in its current 
>>>>>>> shape and form, and there is no way to make it legal without 
>>>>>>> making it non-public.
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Volker
>>>>>>> Am 06.12.2017 um 21:49 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
>>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>>> I'd highly recommend that you take the time to read the latest letter from the Article 29 Working Party to ICANN:
>>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/falque-pierrotin-to-chalaby-marby-06Dec17-en.pdf
>>>>>>>> (also attached)
>>>>>>>> For clarity the Article 29 WP represents the views of the DPAs of the EU member states. In many instances DPAs will address their concerns via this group rather than individually.
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Michele
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon
>>>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions
>>>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>>>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/
>>>>>>>> https://blacknight.blog/
>>>>>>>> https://ceo.hosting/
>>>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>>>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>>>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,
>>>>>>>> Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>>>>>> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/>  /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>>>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>  /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
>>>>>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>>>>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>>>>>>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>>>>>>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>>>>>>> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>>>>>>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>>>>>>> www.keydrive.lu <http://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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>>>>>> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/>  /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>>>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>  /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
>>>>>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>>>>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.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 <http://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-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171207/a93cef00/attachment-0001.html>