[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Unified Access Model published for community input

[Bill Silverstein]

I am going to take many exceptions to all of this.

I am one of those individuals who track down spammers. I know several
other people who do similar work, but this is not a business per se.

As a mail service provider I use the Whois information in deciding to
filter, capture, block spam. Spam filters may do this.

I capture Whois information of some spam coming in to detect patterns,
determine if the spam is in violation of California law and to determine
if I will file a lawsuit. Whether I am a lawyer is not relevant as I have
brought lawsuits on my own. Even if I did decide to retain an attorney, I
would have had to make the determination to bring a lawsuit.

What people seemed to have ignored, or forgotten, is that the domain name
registration is voluntary and one does not need to register a domain name.

What about the right of a recipient knowing the identity of the person
sending them e-mail?  What about the right of a mail service provider to
be able to determine who is using my resources and determine if the person
is a spammer?  What about Spamhaus? Doesn't Spamhaus use this information
to identify and track spammers? What about other spam filters or
reporters?

On Tue, August 28, 2018 10:41 am, Gordon Chillcott wrote:
>
> Hello, Greg:
>
>
> I apologize for being so late with my reply here.
>
>
> I have read Chris' remarks and I do take point on the subject of
> “separate authenticating bodies for each type of eligible user group”
> and he is right about the possibility of gaming strategies. On the other
> hand, it may be difficult to avoid this in some cases. Certain groups
> have accreditation/governing bodies that might be used for this purpose
> – they have already validated their “community members”.
>
> The challenge here is to examine the gaming possibilities and build
> mechanisms to avoid them.
>
>
> On Chris' concern about data retention: I would recommend that the
> intended data retention period be part of the data access request, along
> with a statement of purpose that covers the proposed use of the data and
> its retention.
>
>
> On the topic of bulk data access, we need a much sharper definition of
> what we mean by this. It certainly cannot be a wholesale download of the
> whole, or even part of the database. It might be, for example, a stream
> of selected fields across a region that is to be used for statistical
> purposes (and with a tightly restricted retention period). This sort of
> access needs to be spelled out. Requests by Law Enforcement Agencies
> present their own challenges, though.
>
>
> On some of the questions in Section E (pages 7-8):
>
>
>      1. I believe that requests for non-public WHOIS data should
>         describe its purpose on each request. I really need to see the
>         arguments against this.
>
>      2. Full WHOIS data should not be returned on a request unless that
>         request specifically asks for it and provides a legitimate
>         reason.
>
>      3. Again, I would need to see the arguments against this one, but I
>         feel that the registrant should be allowed to request access to
>         the logs of query activities.
>
>
> On question 5 (page 8) the suggestion that fees would be desirable has
> been mentioned in discussions I have had, including with members of my
> ALS. There was some sympathy for the position some Registrars have
> taken; another suggestion was that this might curb “frivolous”
> requests.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Gordon Chillcott
> Greater Toronto Area Linux Users Group
>
>
> On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 00:25 -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> As mentioned on today's CPWG call, ICANN org published a blog earlier
>> this week releasing the proposed Unified Access Model for community
>> input.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/possible-unified-access-model-published-for-community-input
>>
>>
>> The proposal itself can be found here: Draft Framework for a Possible
>> Unified Access Model for Continued Access to Full WHOIS Data – For
>> Discussion
>>
>>
>> I am the penholder on this comment. Please reply to this email if your
>> are interested in commenting.  Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> --
>> Greg Shatan
>> greg at isoc-ny.org
>>
>>
>> "The Internet is for everyone"
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>