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

[Greg Shatan]

Bill,

I would have seen your email earlier, but it was caught in my spam filter.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:22 PM Bill Silverstein <"icann.org at sorehands.com"@
sorehands.com> wrote:

> 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 groupâ€
> > 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 “frivolousâ€
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Greg Shatan
greg at isoc-ny.org

"The Internet is for everyone"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180903/151ede01/attachment-0001.html>