[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Privacy/Proxy and spam/botnets
Don Blumenthal
dblumenthal at pir.org
Mon Jan 20 18:40:23 UTC 2014
Thanks. I wasn’t picking on you. Those two examples came to mind because
they were recent in the thread.
Don
On 1/20/14, 1:31 PM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen at coldrain.net> wrote:
>
>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