[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] another document that might be of interest
John Bambenek
jcb at bambenekconsulting.com
Fri Oct 27 20:14:07 UTC 2017
I can see that being problematic, but do you also see it as problematic
that the incentives for registries/registrars is often not on the side
of accountability or providing resources that could make the case some
subset of registrants should be denied services for engaging in abusive
or criminal conduct?
On 10/27/2017 5:28 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> Agreed!
>
> We should avoid having a gTLD policy posture that a priori, make
> scofflaws of persons. It is one reason why I've always expressed deep
> concern the ICANN Procedures for handling WHOIS conflicts with
> [national] privacy laws as wrong-headed. First you make me a scofflaw
> then grudgingly confer a waiver. And only after help of expensive
> counsel.
>
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> /Carlton A Samuels/
> /Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
> =============================
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:57 PM, <consult at cgomes.com
> <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>> wrote:
>
> Does anyone disagree with this: “the common goal here is to create
> policy that enables as robust and fully featured RDS as is
> possible without violating the law”?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:13 PM
> *To:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
> *Cc:* GNSO RDS PDP <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] another document that might be of
> interest
>
>
>
> The following statement troubles me greatly:
>
>
>
> The real battle here is between registrants in one side, and
> affected parties in the other. The balance always favoured
> affected parties from the beginning, and people got used to it;
> now that new laws are moving the needle towards registrants, there
> is resistance among those that got used to being favoured.
>
>
>
> This is a false dichotomy for several reasons. First, the
> "affected parties" are, in many cases, engaged in consumer
> protection, anti-abuse (of many different types),
> anti-counterfeiting and other activities that benefit registrants
> -- and more broadly, the security, stability of the Internet and
> trust in the Internet. Second, the "registrants" aren't really in
> the battle. We have people advocating for greatly expanded
> privacy protections, but they are not representing the
> registrants. They may sincerely believe the speak for the
> registrants, or believe they know what's best for the registrants
> -- or may just be privacy advocates. Whether privacy benefits the
> vast majority of registrants -- and whether the benefits outweigh
> the costs -- is very much an open question. (We've heard about
> some edge cases through anecdotes, but that is not indicative of
> anything but bits of the edge.)
>
>
>
> Setting "affected parties" against "registrants" is likely to keep
> us mired in an unproductive "locked-horns" mode. Maybe it
> benefits the privacy camp to delay until things fall apart, but
> that is not governance, and I truly hope that is not the agenda (I
> choose to believe we are just in the "messy and slow" mode of
> multistakeholderism -- unfortunately time and mess are not our
> friends here.)
>
>
>
> If the common goal here is to create policy that enables as robust
> and fully featured RDS as is possible without violating the law,
> then we could have a common goal.
>
>
>
> Figuring out how to deal with GDPR and what it really requires and
> looking for ways to live with it are not elements of denial. They
> are elements of analysis. Saying that GDPR is going to throw a
> big, wet blanket over everything is not analysis -- it is an
> attempt to wield the GDPR as the latest weapon in a long battle
> that has occupied ICANN (and many other spaces) for a long time.
> If we could turn our collective wisdom to problem solving, we
> could make some real headway here.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br
> <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 2017, at 11:38 AM, John Bambenek via
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
> >
> > I would argue that their views are uninformed on other
> points of view or other changes that could be made that would
> satisfy their objectives which is similar but has important
> differences. So I disagree we are at the point we are
> violating EU law.
>
> Unfortunately we are already violating EU law. We are only not
> been sanctioned for it, because the law specify an adjusting
> period. Just read all the legal memos we already got.
>
> > EU DPAs may never change their mind.
>
> EU courts are a viable way to make government officials change
> their mind, if you think that's a matter of interpretation.
>
> > I’ll just get US law changed so that US entities offering
> domains have to list ownership information which means most if
> not all of the gTLDs I care about if not ICANN also.
>
> You know that Verisign, Facebook and Amazon already have
> subsidiaries in EU, right ? And they can move their contracts
> there if being in the US becomes a competitive handicap ?
>
> > We aren’t there yet because the DPAs are only starting to
> hear from us. Until now these discussions were populated by
> ICANN and registrars/registries who want whois to go away anyway.
>
> Frankly, registries and registrars couldn't care less about
> WHOIS. It's just a cost of doing business. The real battle
> here is between registrants in one side, and affected parties
> in the other. The balance always favoured affected parties
> from the beginning, and people got used to it; now that new
> laws are moving the needle towards registrants, there is
> resistance among those that got used to being favoured.
>
>
> >
> > This solitary focus on EU law presupposes that people
> believe that of the laws of the ~200 countries in the world,
> it is EU law that should be the controlling force of internet
> governance. Is that what you are saying?
>
>
> EU privacy law is just the first of many laws pointing in a
> similar direction, so it's not just a matter of following one
> jurisdiction, is about following a trend.
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
--
John Bambenek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171027/ee2dbe0c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list