[IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jul 9 17:03:55 UTC 2015
While I do understand that the task at hand is to improve the procedure,
I agree with Christopher that it is utter folly to not comment on the
fact that many of us consider that the policy is broken (a nonsense,
requires revision, however you choose to frame it). Personally, I would
agree with the recent Circle ID post by Mark Jeftovic,
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150703_confessions_of_an_ex_opponent_of_whois_privacy/.
His recommendations seem to be useful in this discussion:
1. Any Whois Privacy Policy revisions should be tabled until the entire
Whois database is re-engineered as the next generation RDS.
2. That a guiding principle of any future Next Gen Whois / RDS Working
Groups should incorporate *legal due process* and *end-user, (that
is Registrant) control over their own data records*, complete with
automated mechanisms to alert Registrants when inquiries are made
into their records, what the purpose of those inquiries are and
allowing Registrants the ability to withhold disclosure (except in
cases of overt net abuse or where a law enforcement agency is
pursuing a legitimate investigation subject to a valid warrant).
I recognize that the status quo is causing grief for registrars, so
naturally if they have a proposal for moving forward in the meantime in
a way which respects privacy law, that would be great. I hate to cement
this procedure though, when it needs to be thrown out.
cheers Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-07-09 12:50, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
> Dear Jamie:Allow me, for a moment, to abstract totally from all
> subject matter and any opinions in this regard, including my own.
>
> Nevertheless, if ICANN staff consider that they are authorised to
> ignore qualified public input simply on the grounds that it is "out of
> scope" (determined by who?),
> then you are well on the way to driving a large wedge between the
> organisation and the community.
>
> in other proximate and recent discussions the matter of accountability
> and mutual confidence has been raised. I do not need to go into details.
> But if your response is an example of the general attitude of ICANN
> staff, then we - indeed - do have a problem. The resolution of which
> could very well turn out to be far less favourable to the organisation
> than that which would otherwise be necessary.
>
> I invite you and your colleagues to give this issue your serious
> consideration, soon.
>
> Regards
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
> On 09 Jul 2015, at 17:47, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
> <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>> Christopher,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments. As has been repeatedly discussed within
>> the IAG, the scope of the work is limited to consideration of
>> potential improvements to the existing WHOIS Conflicts Procedure. The
>> existing WHOIS policy, the Procedure’s underlying Policy, adoption of
>> globally, international best privacy practices, and the work of the
>> EWG are all outside the scope of the IAG’s mandate. On our call on
>> Monday it would be appropriate to discuss your point 1 below. As the
>> remainder of your points are out of scope, I would recommend that
>> they not be included in the agenda.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jamie
>>
>> Jamie Hedlund
>> VP, Strategic Programs
>> Global Domains Division
>> ICANN
>> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
>> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
>> jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>
>> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
>> <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
>> Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:21
>> To: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
>> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>"
>> <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>>
>> Cc: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
>> <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
>>
>> Good afternoon:
>>
>> I would be glad to thank the ICANN staff for their efforts in
>> producing this draft report, were it not that a large part of the
>> IAG-Whois discussion has been totally ignored.
>> I think it is clear from the record that I could not possibly accept
>> this draft as a basis for further discussion in future IAG conference
>> calls.
>>
>> 1.On the basis of the discussion that I have heard in the conference
>> calls and on the mailing list, I suggest that this is at most a
>> minority report.
>> Before proceeding any further, I would request a formal, nominative,
>> poll of all the Members of the IAG (paragraph 4.2) as to whether this
>> draft is or is not a minority report.
>>
>> 2.I request that the basic arguments that have been repeatedly
>> expressed in the group as to why the present whois policy is not
>> acceptable in large parts of the world,
>> be recorded in detail for the benefit of the GNSO and the ICANN Board.
>>
>> 3.The report should clarify that what is still blithely described as
>> the "underlying policy" (paragraph 1.1) is inconsistent with privacy
>> law in large parts of the world.
>>
>> 4.With regard to the "stability and uniformity of the WHOIS system"
>> (Paragraph 1.1) may I recall that I have proposed that either the
>> burden of proof be reversed to the effect that ICANN must if
>> necessary take the initiative to 'trigger' the procedure, or that
>> ICANN should implement globally, international best practice privacy
>> policy, world-wide. Until these options have been thoroughly
>> discussed, I do not see on what basis ICANN staff can issue a draft
>> report on the interim outcome of the IAG.
>>
>> 5.In this context, may I also request that the IAG - and our readers
>> in the ICANN community - be informed, in our report, as to the
>> procedure and schedule for the implementation of the recommendations
>> of the EWG:
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ewg-recommends-a-replacement-for-whois
>>
>> As I understand it the system proposed by the EWG is aimed at:
>>
>> * Providing appropriate access to *accurate, reliable, and
>> uniform* registration data.
>> * Protecting the privacy of personal information.
>> * *Enabling a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and
>> maintaining* the ability to contact Registrants in order to
>> guarantee *accountability*.
>> * Supporting a framework to address issues involving Registrants
>> including, but not limited to, consumer protection, investigation
>> of cybercrime and intellectual property protection.
>> * Providing an infrastructure to address appropriate law
>> enforcement needs.
>>
>>
>> Best regards to you all
>>
>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>
>>
>> On 08 Jul 2015, at 21:00, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
>> <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Attached please find a draft report for the IAG’s review and
>>> consideration. We propose that discussion of the draft be the sole
>>> agenda item for Monday’s call. If you have any comments or edits
>>> before then please feel free to send those to the mailing list.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> Jamie Hedlund
>>> VP, Strategic Programs
>>> Global Domains Division
>>> ICANN
>>> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
>>> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
>>> jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>> <IAG Draft Report v2.docx><IAG Draft Report
>>> v2.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
>>> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org <mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/whois-iag-volunteers/attachments/20150709/eba2c1ba/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Whois-iag-volunteers
mailing list