[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] another document that might be of interest

Sat Oct 28 09:26:40 UTC 2017

John:
I tend to the Hippocratic view; first do no harm. So any policy posture
that enable accountability, disincentivize rogue behaviours and in the
extreme case  even punish registrants and their enablers for DNS abuse
would be sensible and inside the fence.

Carlton

On 28 Oct 2017 12:15 am, "John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:

I can see that being problematic, but do you also see it as problematic
that the incentives for registries/registrars is often not on the side of
accountability or providing resources that could make the case some subset
of registrants should be denied services for engaging in abusive or
criminal conduct?

On 10/27/2017 5:28 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

Agreed!

We should avoid having a gTLD policy posture that a priori, make scofflaws
of persons.  It is one reason why I've always expressed deep concern the
ICANN Procedures for handling WHOIS conflicts with [national] privacy laws
as wrong-headed.  First you make me a scofflaw then grudgingly confer a
waiver. And only after help of expensive counsel.

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance,
Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:57 PM, <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:

> Does anyone disagree with this: “the common goal here is to create policy
> that enables as robust and fully featured RDS as is possible without
> violating the law”?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounce
> s at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:13 PM
> *To:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> *Cc:* GNSO RDS PDP <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] another document that might be of
> interest
>
>
>
> The following statement troubles me greatly:
>
>
>
> The real battle here is between registrants in one side, and affected
> parties in the other. The balance always favoured affected parties from the
> beginning, and people got used to it; now that new laws are moving the
> needle towards registrants, there is resistance among those that got used
> to being favoured.
>
>
>
> This is a false dichotomy for several reasons.  First, the "affected
> parties" are, in many cases, engaged in consumer protection, anti-abuse (of
> many different types), anti-counterfeiting and other activities that
> benefit registrants -- and more broadly, the security, stability of the
> Internet and trust in the Internet.  Second, the "registrants" aren't
> really in the battle.  We have people advocating for greatly expanded
> privacy protections, but they are not representing the registrants.  They
> may sincerely believe the speak for the registrants, or believe they know
> what's best for the registrants -- or may just be privacy advocates.
> Whether privacy benefits the vast majority of registrants -- and whether
> the benefits outweigh the costs -- is very much an open question.  (We've
> heard about some edge cases through anecdotes, but that is not indicative
> of anything but bits of the edge.)
>
>
>
> Setting "affected parties" against "registrants" is likely to keep us
> mired in an unproductive "locked-horns" mode.  Maybe it benefits the
> privacy camp to delay until things fall apart, but that is not governance,
> and I truly hope that is not the agenda (I choose to believe we are just in
> the "messy and slow" mode of multistakeholderism -- unfortunately time and
> mess are not our friends here.)
>
>
>
> If the common goal here is to create policy that enables as robust and
> fully featured RDS as is possible without violating the law, then we could
> have a common goal.
>
>
>
> Figuring out how to deal with GDPR and what it really requires and looking
> for ways to live with it are not elements of denial.  They are elements of
> analysis.  Saying that GDPR is going to throw a big, wet blanket over
> everything is not analysis -- it is an attempt to wield the GDPR as the
> latest weapon in a long battle that has occupied ICANN (and many other
> spaces) for a long time.  If we could turn our collective wisdom to problem
> solving, we could make some real headway here.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 2017, at 11:38 AM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> >
> > I would argue that their views are uninformed on other points of view or
> other changes that could be made that would satisfy their objectives which
> is similar but has important differences. So I disagree we are at the point
> we are violating EU law.
>
> Unfortunately we are already violating EU law. We are only not been
> sanctioned for it, because the law specify an adjusting period. Just read
> all the legal memos we already got.
>
> > EU DPAs may never change their mind.
>
> EU courts are a viable way to make government officials change their mind,
> if you think that's a matter of interpretation.
>
> > I’ll just get US law changed so that US entities offering domains have
> to list ownership information which means most if not all of the gTLDs I
> care about if not ICANN also.
>
> You know that Verisign, Facebook and Amazon already have subsidiaries in
> EU, right ? And they can move their contracts there if being in the US
> becomes a competitive handicap ?
>
> > We aren’t there yet because the DPAs are only starting to hear from us.
> Until now these discussions were populated by ICANN and
> registrars/registries who want whois to go away anyway.
>
> Frankly, registries and registrars couldn't care less about WHOIS. It's
> just a cost of doing business. The real battle here is between registrants
> in one side, and affected parties in the other. The balance always favoured
> affected parties from the beginning, and people got used to it; now that
> new laws are moving the needle towards registrants, there is resistance
> among those that got used to being favoured.
>
>
> >
> > This solitary focus on EU law presupposes that people believe that of
> the laws of the ~200 countries in the world, it is EU law that should be
> the controlling force of internet governance. Is that what you are saying?
>
>
> EU privacy law is just the first of many laws pointing in a similar
> direction, so it's not just a matter of following one jurisdiction, is
> about following a trend.
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-- 
--

John Bambenek

_______________________________________________
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/20171028/115b95d1/attachment-0001.html>