<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>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?<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/27/2017 5:28 AM, Carlton Samuels
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOZQb9S2grRVhvdVJ3gxup0NoLqvGGphHGwPB5PceC_VQx=xLw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">Agreed! </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">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. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">-Carlton </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
==============================<br>
<i><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">Carlton A
Samuels</font></i><br>
<font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><i>Mobile:
876-818-1799<br>
<font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning,
Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i></font><br>
=============================</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:57 PM, <span
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:consult@cgomes.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">consult@cgomes.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_-3703212682928476242WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Does anyone disagree with this: “<span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">the
common goal here is to create policy that enables as
robust and fully featured RDS as is possible without
violating the law</span>”?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chuck</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
name="m_-3703212682928476242__MailEndCompose"
moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></p>
<span></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a>
[mailto:<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Rubens Kuhl <<a
href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rubensk@nic.br</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> GNSO RDS PDP <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><span
class=""><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] another
document that might be of interest</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
following statement troubles me greatly:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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.</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at
11:41 AM, Rubens Kuhl <<a
href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rubensk@nic.br</a>>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
> On Oct 22, 2017, at 11:38 AM, John
Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
> EU DPAs may never change their mind.<br>
<br>
EU courts are a viable way to make
government officials change their mind, if
you think that's a matter of interpretation.<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
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 ?<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> 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?<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<span style="color:#888888"><br>
<br>
<span class="m_-3703212682928476242hoenzb">Rubens</span><br>
<br>
</span><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--
John Bambenek</pre>
</body>
</html>