[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] WSGR Final Memorandum
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Fri Sep 29 08:16:59 UTC 2017
The entire ccTLD was used for that purpose? Somehow I doubt that. You
mean a domain in that ccTLD, right?
I agree that this group does not make policy for ccTLDs, but we do not
operate in a vacuum. ccTLDs - due to the variety of their approaches -
have been an ideal policy testing ground and I see no reasons not to
take what works from the various ccTLD policies. If something works well
for .eu, why should it not also work well for .africa, for example? or .com?
I would further assume that with the progress of technology, the current
function of WHOIS to demonstrate ownership will be replaced by a more
trustworthy system that does the job better, such as blockchain.
Volker
Am 28.09.2017 um 20:33 schrieb allison nixon:
> Reputation is based on a lot of different points not just contents of
> WHOIS data. If the .EU TLD can keep its customer base clean, there
> isn't much need for WHOIS data for the most part, however this group
> doesn't make policy for ccTLDs. For other TLDs that this group does
> recommend policy for, for example, .XYZ, which boasts a
> greater-than-90-percent rate of maliciousness, any legitimate domain
> in that space will need some other points of reputation to make up for
> that. WHOIS is part of that, including the age, and actual contact
> details.
>
> That said, WHOIS data is an important part of tracing ownership and it
> can have consequences for the registrant.
>
> Recently we had to deal with a ccTLD of .ir that was being used to
> control large botnets. The current and historical WHOIS data showed
> signs that a legitimate registrant's account was stolen to do this.
> Thus, when the complaint was sent to the registrar, the registrant was
> not accused of running botnets, but instead the registrar was alerted
> to an abuse of the service and they could take action accordingly. If
> the ownership of this domain could not be traced, and if there were
> not skilled investigators on the other end, would the registrant have
> been in danger of going to an Iranian prison?
>
> It turns out, the ccTLD of .ir was specifically chosen because the
> criminals thought the poor international relations would hamper law
> enforcement action. However WHOIS and the transparency it provides
> allowed people to discover the truth and prevent serious problems. By
> locking up WHOIS behind court orders, these cross-border issues will
> become worse.
>
> Also, to be clear since a lot of people can't seem to tell the
> difference, everything we did was well within the bounds of civil
> action, we weren't "pretending to be the police" or any of the other
> things people in this group accuse security companies of doing when
> they deal with malware. Any member of the public can file an abuse
> complaint.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:10 PM, theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl
> <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>
> Allison,
>
> Does this problem also exsist with TLDs like .EU, .NL, .DE, .FR
> just to name a few ccTLDs?
>
> Curious,
>
> Theo
>
>
> On 28-9-2017 19:42, allison nixon wrote:
>> >> So, I can see a day that if privacy advocates and/or EU
>> legislation fears prevent such a Best Practice as proper WHOIS
>> records, the service providers will simply choose practices, such
>> as 'you cannot access our service unless you have public whois
>> information available'.
>>
>> It's already happening. Try sending an e-mail using a domain
>> behind WHOIS privacy. Some anti-spam systems drop it straight in
>> the garbage because WHOIS privacy is already a negative
>> reputation point. If WHOIS gets shut down, I fully expect groups
>> like Spamhaus, M3AAWG, APWG, etc, to publish a set of guidelines
>> that registrants need to abide by in order to send mail, or be
>> accessible by people behind corporate firewalls that block based
>> on reputation. ICANN must understand that they are at risk of
>> losing relevancy if they want to take this hardline approach,
>> because if a law breaks the continued functioning of a network,
>> the network will route around it.
>>
>> Look at the "cookies" EU law. Did that actually stop any websites
>> from using cookies? No, it just created a popup that no one reads
>> but everyone clicks through to visit the website. Because
>> breaking cookies breaks websites.
>>
>>
>> >>Some of us have real jobs too..
>>
>> which is the main reason why i can't spend 8 hours every day
>> watching this group, unlike some people here who have been active
>> in this group for years now.
>>
>>
>>
>> My response to Chuck's email earlier, I bolded the responses and
>> tagged the start and end of my replies for clarity:
>>
>> "independent answers to the same questions we asked the
>> European data protection experts earlier in the year"
>> [Chuck Gomes] That was a request from WG members who felt
>> that the DP experts might be biased. The questions were
>> developed by the WG. There were two primary reasons for
>> using the same questions: 1) both groups would be responding
>> to the same questions and therefore make it easy to compare;
>> 2) the questions were approved by the WG.
>>
>>
>> *<allison>I don't think anyone accused the DP experts of being
>> biased. The objection was that the questions themselves were
>> biased. The words "phishing" and "spam" and "malware" never once
>> appeared in this entire document, despite being major core
>> issues. The only abuse issues that were focused on were in
>> relation to intellectual property violation and harassment of
>> women, both of which are not the major issues most of us deal
>> with on a daily basis(not to belittle them but they are generally
>> not the reason why we are here today). The word "fraud" was
>> mentioned once in a question and then never directly addressed in
>> the response.*
>> *
>> *
>> *Additionally, my entire industry was grossly misrepresented in
>> question #6. None of us operate with police powers, and none of
>> us pretend to have any. When we submit a complaint to a registrar
>> about one of their customers breaking the law, the illegality of
>> the act provides necessary justification for the registrar to
>> drop the customer without a refund. This is not prosecution of a
>> crime, and claiming it is such is a lie. Evidence of breaking the
>> law is necessary because registrars aren't just going to take
>> down any customer we say we don't like. I wholly object to the
>> entire line they continued on about cybersecurity companies and
>> "quasi-police powers", because the question never differentiated
>> between civil and criminal actions and it was therefore misleading. *
>> *
>> *
>> *None of the questions addressed the issues that registrants have
>> where their WHOIS and other reputation points affect the de-facto
>> functionality of a domain, for example a domain's functionality
>> is hampered when it is on blocklists. Or if someone sends a
>> complaint against the domain and has no tools to differentiate
>> the registrant from the criminal (as registrar accounts are often
>> hacked), then the incorrect accusation can also affect the
>> operability of the domain as it is mistakenly taken down in
>> confusion. None of the questions ask about conflicts between GDPR
>> and basic network-level-functionality of domains.*
>> *
>> *
>> *Also, none of the questions ask if a free no-obligation
>> alternative (whois privacy protect) enhances the validity of
>> consent given for making WHOIS records public. </allison>*
>>
>> So we weren't allowed to ask questions of these legal
>> experts? You know, they can't magically divine all legitimate
>> use cases. The session with the EU data protection experts
>> earlier this year is the exact same one we objected to
>> because anti abuse use cases got exactly zero representation.
>> So why choose that exact set of questions again especially
>> since an entire group of people have joined the group
>> afterwards(actually, due to this specific problem of lack of
>> representation)? And then label it "final", really.
>> [Chuck Gomes] We didn’t ask them to consider use cases except
>> as they were relevant to the questions we asked; that is our
>> job and we prepared a list of those a long time ago. We
>> asked them to focus on their understanding of European Data
>> Protection law. Our WG has a good mix of people that use RDS
>> data for different uses.
>>
>> *<allison>And his answers are borderline useless. The scenarios
>> presented were extremely poor, and not reflecting today's
>> Internet and the problems network operators face. For example,
>> when he writes "This means that the term 'vital interest' is to
>> be interpreted as referring to an individual’s life, health,
>> safety, or other such interest that is essential to their
>> physical wellbeing", he goes on to talk about IP violations, the
>> rights of a child, the economic interests of a search engine,
>> finally concluding "we believe that the **conditions for using
>> the 'legitimate interests' legal basis would not be satisfied".*
>> *
>> *
>> *That's a complete misrepresentation of the interests at stake
>> here. The issue at hand is not the economic interests of one
>> company nor about mere copyright infringement. The WHOIS data
>> resource is used to combat all types of fraud, international
>> espionage, rigging of elections, and so many hostile attacks.
>> Some of these attacks, especially DDOS, frequently threaten basic
>> functionality of the Internet. It has an international strategic
>> value and promotes lawful behavior far more than it hurts. It's
>> used to create cleaner, safer networks. There are countless
>> documented instances where WHOIS played a key role and where the
>> replacement system would have allowed the malicious behavior to
>> continue. All of these facts have been conveniently left out of
>> the question, and since the lawyer can't be expected to know all
>> this, he has no choice but to conclude that the legitimate
>> interests provided are too weak. </allison>*
>>
>>
>> Havent gone through it yet, will do so as i get time.
>> Expecting to see the same result one can expect when one
>> doesn't represent entire groups of constituencies.
>> [Chuck Gomes] What do you mean by representing ‘entire groups
>> of constituencies’? Do you represent an entire
>> constituency? Are you aware of any constituencies who are
>> not represented in the WG? If so, please encourage them to
>> participate.
>>
>>
>> *<allison>Dozens of people joined this mailing list after
>> numerous events demonstrated that this working group did not
>> consider the overall well being of the Internet, and had a
>> completely skewed idea of the problems the Internet faces today.
>> People were outraged that this group was going in the direction
>> it was going, ignoring how the Internet actually works. The fact
>> that these questions were chosen- and the fact that the new
>> membership(especially those that joined after the questions were
>> initially asked) were not given any opportunity to provide input
>> on questions to the lawyer- does not reflect well on the
>> leadership of this working group. Even when the original
>> questions were created, as far as I can tell, only people
>> physically present at that meeting had any chance to provide
>> input. For those of us with jobs in operations, being
>> ever-present for this working group is impossible, and none of us
>> have the stamina that some of the people here have, because we
>> are busy working. *
>> *
>> *
>> *At its most charitable interpretation, the choice of these
>> specific questions could be an innocent oversight or
>> miscommunication. At its least charitable, it looks like ICANN's
>> money was wasted on a procedural trick to keep facts out of the
>> conversation and continue to push a narrow agenda.*
>> *
>> *
>> *People from numerous unrelated Internet companies and law firms
>> flooded this group earlier this year once sunshine was shed on
>> this group's activities. Maybe that's important. Please take it
>> seriously. </allison>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Michael Peddemors
>> <michael at linuxmagic.com <mailto:michael at linuxmagic.com>> wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, If ICANN cannot figure out how to make a proper
>> functioning WHOIS policy, we have to remember that the
>> community at large will, and then simply, ICANN will loose
>> relevance on this issue.
>>
>> No one passed a law that a mail server had to have a
>> functioning PTR record, (well yes, some international spam
>> legislations clearly spelled out the need for clearly
>> specifying the operator) but if you want to send email today,
>> functionally you need a PTR record.
>>
>> Only problem is, that often it is the biggest players that
>> set those standards, and it is the role of organizations like
>> ICANN to level the field, and make sure that directions
>> aren't dictated by the biggest players on the block, and
>> never more so in a world of consolidation and cloud providers.
>>
>> I think it was Yahoo that was one of the first big players to
>> simply not accept connections from IP(s) with no PTR, and I
>> know we were one of the early adopters to that strategy..
>>
>> So, I can see a day that if privacy advocates and/or EU
>> legislation fears prevent such a Best Practice as proper
>> WHOIS records, the service providers will simply choose
>> practices, such as 'you cannot access our service unless you
>> have public whois information available'.
>>
>> It would be far better if ICANN can understand the importance
>> of that need, and make a statement that everyone can get
>> behind and point to, that levels that field, in 'spite' of
>> possible contradictory privacy information.
>>
>> Let's just simple keep these two conversations separate, one
>> should NOT affect the other, this isn't a privacy vs
>> information publishing standards issue, we can have both.
>>
>> (And again, I assert that simply 'informed consent' can
>> always deal with any situations where they conflict)
>>
>> -- Michael --
>>
>> PS, my concern is that this lengthy wrangling prevents real
>> work from getting done, and the participants who are integral
>> to this conversation will fall by the way side, and the
>> lobbyist's will simply wear them down ..
>>
>> Some of us have real jobs too..
>>
>>
>> On 17-09-27 02:58 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>>
>> A simple policy proscription would be, for instance, to
>> say under US law if you get a domain under the control of
>> a US registrar, we need you to consent to full
>> disclosure. Don't like it, pick a European ccTLD. I don't
>> advocate that, mind you, but that's the kind of policy
>> balkanization could produce.
>>
>> j
>>
>>
>> On 09/27/2017 04:31 PM, Paul Keating wrote:
>>
>> I am failing to understand how such a walled-garden
>> approach will solve anything.
>>
>> 1.EU <http://1.EU> registrars/registries would
>> still have to deal with GDPR.
>>
>> 2.Registrars are not aided by the distinction since
>> they would still end up with EU customers and EU
>> registrant data.
>>
>> PRK
>>
>> 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 jonathan matkowsky
>> <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net
>> <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>
>> <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net
>> <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>>>
>> Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:03 PM
>> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br
>> <mailto:rubensk at nic.br> <mailto:rubensk at nic.br
>> <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>>
>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] WSGR Final Memorandum
>>
>> Assuming for argument's sake that's true without
>> taking any
>> position as I'm still catching up from a week
>> ago, I'm not sure
>> this should be dismissed without consideration as
>> a possibility,
>> although obviously not by any stretch of the
>> imagination ideal -->
>> non-EU registrars block EU registrants, and
>> registries contract
>> with non-EU registrars.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rubens Kuhl
>> <rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>
>> <mailto:rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:17 PM, John Horton
>> <john.horton at legitscript.com
>> <mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com>
>> <mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com
>> <mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com>>> wrote:
>>
>> Much of this problem goes away if we all
>> agree that EU-based
>> registrars should henceforth only be
>> allowed to accept
>> registrants in the EU. Aside from the
>> effect on EU
>> registrars' revenue, what's the logical
>> argument against that
>> from a policy perspective?
>>
>> After all, isn't the purpose of the GDPR
>> to protect _EU
>> residents_?
>>
>>
>> That's correct, but the conclusion is not.
>> Non-EU registrars
>> are also subject to GDPR if targeting EU
>> customers, which
>> could be as simple as providing services in
>> EU languages and
>> accepting registration transactions from the EU.
>> So, for the problem to go away non-EU
>> registrars would need to
>> block EU registrants, and registries would
>> only be able to
>> enter contracts with non-EU registrars.
>>
>> So EU users would either be happy using
>> numeric IP addresses,
>> or develop a naming system of their own. Then
>> we would have
>> balkanisation, this time actually including
>> the original balkans.
>>
>>
>> Rubens
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> <mailto: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>
>>
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *******************************************************************
>> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is
>> intended only for the
>> designated recipient(s). It may contain
>> confidential or
>> proprietary information and may be subject to
>> confidentiality
>> protections. If you are not a designated
>> recipient, you may not
>> review, copy or distribute this message. If you
>> receive this in
>> error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail
>> and delete this
>> message. Thank
>>
>> you.*******************************************************************_______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> <mailto: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 <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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
>> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
>> "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower
>> TechnoServices Ltd.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 604-682-0300 <tel:604-682-0300> Beautiful British Columbia,
>> Canada
>>
>> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential
>> and intended
>> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
>> are addressed.
>> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this
>> email are solely
>> those of the author and are not intended to represent those
>> of the company.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________
>> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________________
> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170929/b4fe6fe0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list