[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Next possible move related to GDPR
icann-list at sorehands.com
Tue Sep 4 21:11:03 UTC 2018
I need the data for my own personal pursuit of miscreants. I know of
several other people who do this and provides their results to Spamhaus. I
have provided this information to the FBI and FTC.
Don't individuals have a right to be able to identify whom they are
Don't individuals have the right to know the identify of the people
You mentioned that the people looking to track down abusers on the
internet need not be in uniform, but how do you quantify? An attorney? A
security researcher? Someone who had their mother had been scammed for
thousands of dollar? What about someone who wanted to see if the 3 reviews
on Amazon are legitimate reviews?
On Tue, September 4, 2018 1:48 pm, Holly Raiche wrote:
> Sorry Evan
> Im with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one.
> Yes, I asked for balance. And in many of my earlier emails on this issue,
> I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies
> (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet.
> I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to
> personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need
> the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants.
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
>> Hi Holly,
>> I'm with Carlton on this.
>> I would remind all to recall the reason we are here: ICANN Bylaw Section
>> The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the
>> activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests individual
>> Internet users.
>> We are here (primarily, arguably exclusively) to (a) determine positions
>> based on the needs of the billions of Internet users and (b) advance
>> those positions within ICANN as strongly as possible. Our role is not to
>> consider and balance all sides before-the-fact; that is for the greater
>> community-based negotiation and ultimately the Board. We are here as
>> advocates, not conciliators.
>> Like it or not, ICANN is an adversarial environment in which (Holly and
>> Tijani, you both know this as well as anyone) historically the needs of
>> end-users have taken a back seat to all other interests. If At-Large
>> does not clearly articulate the needs of end users, nobody will --
>> indeed that is our singular role in ICANN -- and even when we do we're
>> not always listened to. Of course reasonable result and compromise are
>> possible, but let's not handicap our positions before we start. There's
>> been little "balance" or consideration shown to date by those who have
>> already made enforcement of existing ICANN abuse regulations a nightmare
>> and would eagerly roll back even the meagre attempts at protection that
>> already exist.
>> When the tolerant and reasonable encounter the intolerant and
>> unreasonable, even if the tolerant are far greater in numbers, the
>> latter gets its way.
>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
>> First - Carlton, while I almost always agree with you, Im afraid that,
>> this time, I think Bastiaan has made a very good argument and I agree
>> with his statement - which is even more impressive since English is not
>> his first language. Well done Bastiaan.
>> And for Carlton - I still think we are on the same page - or close to.
>> And to borrow from a presentation I recently attended: the issue isnt
>> privacy versus security; it is really an issue of one aspect of security
>> versus another - both are necessary.
>> On 4 Sep 2018, at 8:43 pm, Bastiaan Goslings
>> <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:
>> >> On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>> >> Bastiaan:
>> >> You seem adept at destroying context to feed your allergy.
>> > I seem adept at destroying?
>> > Ok, thank you
I am not an English native speaker so I had to look it
>> up just to confirm what you might mean. You have a talent for (seem
>> adept at) phrasing your sentences quite archaically ;-)
>> > Anyway, perception is of course in the eye of the beholder, which Ill
>> have to respect and therefore cannot comment on. Suffice to say I
>> completely disagree, I have no intention whatsoever to consciously
>> destroy anything, I could have easily quoted someone else to make my
>> point. One that still stands btw.
>> >> My phrasing was in context of defining what I meant by majority. Your
>> interpretation blithely ignored the contextual meaning..There is a
>> word for that I cannot recall at the minute.
>> >> Kindly,
>> >> -Carlton
>> > Right. Not very kind from where I sit, but I am not going to take
>> offence here.
>> > -Bastiaan
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
More information about the registration-issues-wg