<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><i><b>We submit
the following comments (below and attached) to the EWG
on the issue of EWG Use Cases.<br>
</b></i></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><i><b>Sincerely,</b></i><i><b><br>
</b></i> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Kathy
Kleiman<br>
Tamir Israel<br>
Milton Mueller<br>
Roy Balleste<br>
Robin Gross<br>
Avri Doria<br>
Marie-Laure Lemineur<br>
Peter Green<br>
Edward Morris <br>
All members of the NCSG<br>
<br>
</span></i></b> </span></i></b></p>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Calibri">***********************************************</span></i></b><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><i><b><br>
The
EWG Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed:</b></i></font></font><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><i><b> How
are the Use Cases Justified and How do they fit within the
Scope and
Mission of ICANN and How have these Cases Been Measured
Against Due
Process and Practices in other Fields? </b></i></font></font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">After
years of debating the need to narrow access to the Whois, we
in the
NCSG are shocked to find an array of “Use Cases” that seem
tantamount to giving everyone everything they have ever
wanted. </font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">We
respectfully submit that we do not understand the Use Cases
developed
by the EWG: what were the limits set? What rigor in the
analysis? How do the “Use Cases” fit within the limited and
narrow scope
and mission of ICANN? How do the Use Cases fit within
traditional
practices and protections for the owners and providers of the
data? </font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">For
example:</font></font></p>
<font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><br>
<font size="4"><font size="4">a) </font></font>Why is an
individual entitled to find the physical location of a domain
name registrant? What law gives an individual the right to track
down a Registrant for purposes that may include
stalking, harassment and intimidation? </font></font>
<p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in"><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4">The
physical dangers are very clear, but the benefits are not. The
only
answer given by a EWG member to date is that Internet users
should be
allowed to find the locations of the vendors with whom they
are doing
business. We note that only the smallest of subsets of domain
name
registrants are engaged in business-to-consumer transactions,
and
that these interactions with the Amazons, Facebooks, and Estee
Lauders of the world are regulated closely by local and
national
regulators. </font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in"><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4">ICANN
is neither a business regulator nor a consumer protection
agency. The Whois and any related new set of data is not a
substitute,
replacement or proxy for the work of governments in protecting
consumers. Governments can and do mandate what data must be
made
available on the websites of entities selling goods to the
general
public. Governments can and do educate consumers to deal only
with
entities they know online and that have complied with the
legal
requirements of disclosure and presentation.</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in"><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4">This
is content outside the scope and mission of ICANN. We are not
a
content regulator; we are not a consumer protection
organization; and
we know something more: that domain names need not be used for
websites, but for listservs, for email addresses and more. The
vast
majority of domain names provide ideas, but not necessarily
websites
or content for the general public. </font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in"><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4">Yet,
the risks of validating them and making the physical location
of all
registrants available to any “Individual Internet User”
threaten
far more than assist, and harm far more than help. They could
lead
to harassment, stalking, physical harm, psychological harm,
and
unnecessary threats to ideas and communications. </font></font><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><b>The
Internet users who should be protected here are the
Registrants.</b></font></font></p>
<font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><br>
<font size="4">b) </font>Domain Name Research – the
availability of Whois data for domain name research seems to
have some validity if provided in the aggregate and via
some type of statistical sampling without personal data
associated. But to allow a Researcher access to “Specified
Registrants” with Contact and Specific Historical Data strains
credulity, and threatens individual Domain Name Registrants.</font></font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">c)
Legal Actions -- Unfortunately, lawyers are the butt of jokes
in many
societies around the world. When asked why, lawyers note that
they
are mocked, but feared. The lawyer code of “zealous advocacy”
generally requires the single-minded pursuit of the clients’
goals
– regardless of the merit, the fairness or even the truth of
the
matter. Accordingly, lawyers intimidate, threaten, browbeat,
and sue
(with and without adequate grounds). That is their/our job<font
size="4">.<br>
</font></font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4"><font size="4"></font></font></font><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4">But
societies with lawyers protect against their abuses. For
example, to
attain the identity of a “John Doe” (an unidentified person in
a
chatroom), lawyers may not merely made an allegation of
wrongdoing or
breach, he/she must file a lawsuit, show a justified legal
claim and
affirm they will not misuse the data/identity when disclosed.
If the
conditions are met, and the disclosure made, the attorney’s
actions
are monitored by a judge or magistrate for protection of the
John
Doe.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">Similarly,
sanctions threaten frivolous lawsuits by attorneys which would
sap
the time, money and energy, particularly of smaller
defendants. Further, due process rules help level the planning
field by ensuring
that parties large and small, represented and not, have the
time and
notice needed to prepare and ready themselves for legal steps.
</font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">The
high reputation of a the members of the Trademark Bar in ICANN
notwithstanding, the mere proof of being a lawyer and the mere
allegation of a legal problem is never enough to cause a
defendant to
lose rights, privileges and protections. It cannot be here.</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><font size="4">c) </font>UDRP
cases<font size="4">?</font><br>
</font></font><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4">Obviously
a
Registrant to a UDRP domain name dispute case must receive
notice
of the case (and it can be provided by his/her Registrar), but
why
should his/her name, location and contact information be
disclosed? The UDRP is a virtual tribunal in which all
proceedings pass by
email. Physical locations are irrelevant; identity of the
Registrant
is irrelevant (except as disclosed through actions online or in
other
forums). </font></font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">Domain
names can be taken down and transferred without exposing the
Registrant to other forms of wrath and retaliation by the
trademark
owner and the personal wrath of the party seeking the
takedown.</font></font></p>
<font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><br>
<font size="4">d) </font>Business Domain Name and Sale</font></font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">Some
country codes have looked at the purpose of domain name use –
and
limited access to Registrant information. A potential buyer of
domain names is not entitled to any information that the
domain name
registrant does not choose to provide. By way of comparison,
what
potential buyer of a house would have the right to come onto
the
property, harass the home owner and seek the history of
repairs to
roofs and furnaces </font></font><font face="Calibri,
sans-serif"><font size="4"><i><b>prior
</b></i></font></font><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">to
an indication the homeowner wanted to sell, and before any
steps
taken by the home owner to entertain the offer of that
particular
buyer? </font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">Similarly,
uninvited potential purchasers of domain names have no rights
to
Whois data – and certainly no unique rights to data about the
Registrant, Registration History, or contact information or
anything
else. All information can and should come through the
Registrant –
if and when he/she/it is interested in selling.</font></font></p>
<font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><br>
<font size="4"><font size="4">e) </font></font>Abuse Mitigation
and Malicious Activities.</font></font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4">For
years, registries and independent third parties have been
studying
malicious activities online and taking down domain names
without any
need to disclose or even contact the registrant. Such
disclosure of
registrants should not be routine, but subject to the legal
and law
enforcement process of investigation, and appropriate
subpoenas and
warrants. </font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font
size="4"><i><b>We
respectfully submit that the Use Cases are strained – too
much
disclosure with too little process and far too little
protection for
the Domain Name Registrant. Such a “wish list” of uses
should not
be further entertained by the EWG. </b></i></font></font><font
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font size="4"><i><u><b>A
far better alternative is to limit the data in whatever
Whois/Directory databases are to follow – provide a
contact for
technical questions, delete physical location (which can
still be
found through the Registrar likely subject to the
appropriate
jurisdictional protections for the Registrant), and
delete the
numerous additional fields being added.</b></u></i></font></font><i><b>
</b></i>
</p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.3 (Win32)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style>
</body>
</html>