[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Article 29 Working Party to ICANN
Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com
Fri Dec 8 07:29:13 UTC 2017
That’s a fact +1 Stephanie
Kris
> On 8 Dec 2017, at 06:08, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> The problem Rubens, at the risk of getting philosophical and causing Chuck to shut down this conversation, is that most end users do not understand how this works. They do not understand online advertising, scraping, how algorithms work, what they should look for on their browser, how to protect their machines, what to do with their bluetooth connections, why they should ask their car dealer where their geo-positioning and cell traffic data is shared.....and they certainly do not understand how cybercrime is fought, how reputation systems could harm them, who is harvesting their data, why it matters if an ID theft gang on the other side of the globe has all their personal data. I can go on for pages about what they don't understand about food safety, water safety, basic health management including immunization, first aid, diet, agricultural practices, chemicals and pesticides used in the home, you name it....anyone who has worked at all in consumer education knows how hard these basic matters are, and how difficult the job has become in our complex, information rich global society.
>
> The noncommercial users constituency has been trying to make this point since it was formed. Life is too complex to dump all this on the end user. There is a fiduciary responsibility here. Cries that an open WHOIS is necessary for consumer protection is, (begging the pardon of all those who have advanced that argument), utter nonsense. All consumer protection agencies know that in western democracies you have to aim consumer information at a grade 6 reading level. This job becomes much harder where the literacy rate is lower, or there are language barriers. There is a wealth of research on how difficult it is to get basic self protection information into the hands of citizens. Doubtless in the early days, Jon Postel and his pals who appeared in WHOIS understood everything they read in WHOIS, but they were building the Internet with post graduate degrees, not wandering on to it after their day jobs at minimum wage. And now, with resellers and hosting and lawyers and numbered companies representing the registrants...it is a maze. It is not responsible to throw people out on that and expect them to manage. Therefore, where there are fiduciary responsibilities, responsible actors should shoulder them, not foist them off on the end user. Protection of the name address phone number and email of registrants is a pretty basic concept. REgistrants who are individuals should be contacted through a non-personally identifiable contact email such as abuse at whatever.com. Phone number is going to have to be a trusted third party.
>
> As for people selecting only sites that have identifiable registrants....Responsible governments should be legislating e-commerce. Consumers should be educated not to provide financial information to un-trusted, unauthenticated sites, which is quite different from being able to look up a registrant in a public WHOIS directory. Payment mechanisms and intermediaries should be accredited, authenticated, and independently verifiable during transactions. When it comes to free speech, people can read what they read and I don't see a role for ICANN or any of the intermediaries who are discussing the blocking of traffic to interfere. I recognize that people apparently cannot tell truth from fiction and fantasy but this is a profoundly difficult problem we have grappled with for centuries and I doubt we are going to solve it here....
>
>
>
> Ok I quit now.
>
> SP
>
>> On 2017-12-07 20:28, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>>
>> Stephanie,
>>
>> More than servers, it's quite likely that the same way people current turn "SafeBrowsing" (lookup of known bad sites) on and off, or adult content filters on and off, they will configure their browsers to access or not sites with no public registrant information. It's not a question of a minority of big servers and a majority of registrants; it's more of a minority of registrants and a majority of end-users that will vote with their feet whether they like it or not. But since the Internet is older than 21 years, I believe we can leave the choice to free will of all parties involved.
>>
>>
>> Rubens
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7 Dec 2017, at 23:03, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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> 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> 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>
>>>>>>>> Cc: 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
>>>>>>>>> To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>>>>>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>>>>>>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>>>>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.net
>>>>>>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>>>>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>> 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/20171208/3ff38f4a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list