[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
Bob Bruen
bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jan 20 17:22:46 UTC 2014
Hi Michele,
My "convenient" definition was the original intent. I did not change
history to get to that. The changes to whois over time does not erase the
original intent.
I did not mention ccTLDs, but if you assert that they are not meeting the
original intent, then I agree with you.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> Bob
>
> I think you skipped a large part of whois' history to come up with your rather "convenient" definition
>
> In any case, by your logic then most ccTLDs are "undermining it" - an assertion most ccTLD operators probably find offensive
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
> http://www.blacknight.co/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://www.technology.ie
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen at coldrain.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:45 PM
> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
>
>
> Hi Michele,
>
> whois, in the beginning, was intended to be accurate and public. Hiding information, imho, is undermining it.
>
> --bob
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
>> What exactly is "undermining whois" ?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
>> http://www.blacknight.co/
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> http://www.technology.ie
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruen
>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:20 PM
>> To: Tim Ruiz
>> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider
>> undermining whois a harm, as well
>>
>> --bob
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>
>>> What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen at coldrain.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Volker,
>>>>
>>>> I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
>>>>
>>>> However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
>>>>
>>>> --bob
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from
>>>>> using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing
>>>>> to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones.
>>>>> In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts.
>>>>> Volker
>>>>> Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and
>>>>> then deal with those which appear to problematical.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as
>>>>> spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal
>>>>> with problem domain names.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
>>>>>
>>>>> --bob
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding
>>>>> response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then
>>>>> how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a
>>>>> commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate
>>>>> the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking
>>>>> questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we
>>>>> are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of
>>>>> incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a
>>>>> jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe
>>>>> determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain
>>>>> name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be
>>>>> done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly
>>>>> not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this
>>>>> problem.
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>> On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jin and all
>>>>> I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is
>>>>> agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get
>>>>> back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that
>>>>> may be.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still
>>>>> a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are
>>>>> possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use
>>>>> the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree
>>>>> with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities
>>>>> that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the
>>>>> protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges
>>>>> come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from
>>>>> others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only
>>>>> frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers.
>>>>> Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on
>>>>> Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read
>>>>> the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use
>>>>> the term)
>>>>>
>>>>> Holly
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Don and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group
>>>>> teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a
>>>>> consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to
>>>>> SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each
>>>>> group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps
>>>>> REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague
>>>>> questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and
>>>>> encourage better responses.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope these ideas are helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>> James L. Bikoff
>>>>> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
>>>>> 1101 30th Street, NW
>>>>> Suite 120
>>>>> Washington, DC 20007
>>>>> Tel: 202-944-3303
>>>>> Fax: 202-944-3306
>>>>> jbikoff at sgbdc.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>
>>>>> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST
>>>>> To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
>>>>> Carlton posted an issue that shouldn't wait a week:
>>>>>
>>>>> "John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others
>>>>> might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions
>>>>> to address Stephanie's issue?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be
>>>>> instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed
>>>>> organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has
>>>>> been that his document is a significant improvement over where
>>>>> we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline.
>>>>> However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest
>>>>> modifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Robert Bruen
>>>> Cold Rain Labs
>>>> http://coldrain.net/bruen
>>>> +1.802.579.6288
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Robert Bruen
>> Cold Rain Labs
>> http://coldrain.net/bruen
>> +1.802.579.6288
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Robert Bruen
> Cold Rain Labs
> http://coldrain.net/bruen
> +1.802.579.6288
>
>
--
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list