[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Privacy/Proxy and spam/botnets
Bob Bruen
bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jan 20 18:31:33 UTC 2014
Hi Don,
http://www.senderbase.org/ - A Cisco group which has been documenting the
percent of spam for many years. Today it was 85% spam.
I think that part about the origin of privacy services in not question.
Registrars sell this service, Proxy has a broader definition, but when
limited to offers by Registrars, it is straightforward.
If you want to look at a private company offering to be the front for
other organizations, that company would be the registrant for the domains.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Don Blumenthal wrote:
> I¹m jumping in briefly to rename this thread.
>
> And request that assertions of fact (spam percentages and origin of proxy
> and privacy services to name a couple) be accompanied by documentation so
> we can get a head start on assembling materials. It will have to happen
> now or later.
>
> Don
>
> On 1/20/14, 12:47 PM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>
>> As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy.
>> Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not
>> should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think
>> that is extreme...
>>
>> BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data,
>> logging private communication, etc.
>>
>> Volker
>>
>> Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen:
>>> Hi Volker,
>>>
>>> Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois
>>> and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding
>>> who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see
>>> who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was
>>> intended to be public in the first place.
>>>
>>> It appears that you have decided that the general public does not
>>> deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say
>>> to something so extreme.
>>>
>>> --bob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>>
>>>> No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy
>>>> services, provided they are required to reveal such
>>>> identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
>>>>
>>>> Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the
>>>> other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive
>>>> data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best
>>>> left to LEAs into their own hands.
>>>>
>>>> There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and
>>>> not to have their full names and likenesses published.
>>>> Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
>>>>
>>>> Volker
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> shouldn¹t wait a week:
>>>>
>>>> ³John 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>>
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>
>> Volker A. Greimann
>> - Rechtsabteilung -
>>
>> Key-Systems GmbH
>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>
>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>>
>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>>
>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>>
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>> www.keydrive.lu
>>
>> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
>> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
>> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
>> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns
>> per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
>> us.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Volker A. Greimann
>> - legal department -
>>
>> Key-Systems GmbH
>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>
>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>>
>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
>> updated:
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>>
>> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>>
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>> www.keydrive.lu
>>
>> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom
>> it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content
>> of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this
>> e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
>> e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
>> us by telephone.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list