[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Krebs On Security article RE whois and GDRP

[pkngrds at klos.net]

On 2/18/2018 9:14 AM, consult at cgomes.com wrote:
>
> Patrick,
>
> Let me first call attention to the fact that I cc’d the leadership 
> team so that they can judge whether my suggestion was ridiculous or not.
>

Let me call attention to the fact that I cc'd the entire list so the 
community can be involved in the conversation as well. (as you say "we 
all have to work collaboratively in this WG")

> I am not in a position to determine what the truth is in this situation,
>

Well, I AM in such a position because IT HAPPENED TO ME.

> but, even if you are correct in your assessment, giving Sara a chance 
> to respond to your strong accusation privately
>

Big companies like GoDaddy will not respond privately - it's beneath 
them.  Believe me, I've tried.

If Sara was interested in responding to my claims, she has had every 
opportunity to do so, either privately or publicly.  I have not heard a 
peep from her.

> would be much more respectful than making your  accusation publicly.
>

It's not an accusation - it's a statement of facts.  I welcome Sara 
and/or GoDaddy to present any evidence to the contrary.

> Email communications are very easily misunderstood and/or poorly 
> expressed.  I do not know whether that is the case here or not; I am 
> sure you do not believe that is the case, but giving her the benefit 
> of the doubt and asking her to explain further privately would have 
> been a much better approach in my opinion.
>

As I said, I have no reason to believe she would respond to a private 
discussion of this matter.  I have tried several time to discuss 
GoDaddy's port 43 restrictions with them and they would not respond to 
me.  GoDaddy is too big to care about the opinions of a single 
anti-phishing anti-spam anti-abuse advocate that disagrees with 
GoDaddy's illegal restrictions on port 43 WHOIS.

> The fact is that we all have to work collaboratively in this WG.
>

Which is why this should be discussed on the list as well.  I know I'm 
not the only person on the list that feels this way.

Patrick Klos
Phishcop Admin

> Chuck
>
> *From:*pkngrds at klos.net [mailto:pkngrds at klos.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 17, 2018 1:20 PM
> *To:* consult at cgomes.com
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Krebs On Security article RE whois 
> and GDRP
>
> On 2/17/2018 2:11 PM, consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> 
> wrote:
>
>     Patrick,
>
>     If you are going to specifically criticize a company by name,
>     please do that directly with that company and not on this list.
>
>     Chuck
>
>
> That's ridiculous.
>
> Sara Bockey, representing GoDaddy, made statements on the list that do 
> not reflect the truth.  It is my obligation to refute her claims 
> publicly on the same forum her original statements were made.
>
> Patrick Klos
> Klos Technologies, Inc. and Phishcop Admin
>
>
>     *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>     *On Behalf Of *pkngrds at klos.net <mailto:pkngrds at klos.net>
>     *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 3:35 PM
>     *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Krebs On Security article RE
>     whois and GDRP
>
>     On 2/16/2018 5:22 PM, Sara Bockey wrote:
>
>         Not only is our decision to mask customer information in
>         Port43 completely unrelated to GDPR, but it results
>         directly from attacks by third parties who harvest and
>         sell our customers’ personal information.
>
>
>     I don't know what precipitated this conversation, but I will jump
>     in here based on my actual experience.
>
>     To say "it results directly from attacks by third parties
>     who harvest and sell our customers’ personal information" is a
>     complete lie!
>
>     GoDaddy has blocked MANY IP addresses I've attempted to use port
>     43 WHOIS on with absolutely no due process!  And I can say with
>     absolute certainty that I and my IP addresses were not involved in
>     any form of "attack(s) by third parties".
>
>     But if I wanted to continue fighting phishing, spammers and other
>     abuses without being forced to use GoDaddy's cumbersome web
>     interface (with their stupid "I'm not a robot" and "Choose all the
>     pictures that have a goldfish in them" games) to process each
>     WHOIS request, I would have to give in to GoDaddy's illegal
>     blocking (restricted WHOIS output) and sign their "whitelist
>     request" to get myself back to business!!!
>
>
>
>         Given the onslaught of spam and robo-calls our customers have
>         been receiving – often within minutes of registering a domain
>         name—we felt that action was required, if not overdue.
>
>
>     I'm not sure I can see how port 43 WHOIS requests can be used to
>     determine new domain registrations in the way you imply?  Maybe
>     you can share how that works??
>
>
>
>         WHOIS information is still very much available for any & all
>         domain names via our web-based WHOIS tool,
>
>
>     It may be available, but it's quite cumbersome and a waste of good
>     peoples' time!!
>
>
>
>         However, bulk access by anonymous users is no longer supported.
>
>
>     I didn't know "bulk access by anonymous users" was ever a
>     thing?!?  If you were intent on blocking "bulk access", why should
>     that have impacted port 43 WHOIS requests for single domains???
>
>
>
>         I also note that during this entire process, we have kept
>         ICANN informed of both the attacks on our Port43 systems
>
>
>     Please provide the evidence of my "attacks" that you've provided
>     to ICANN to justify your restricting WHOIS data to any of my IP
>     addresses.
>
>
>
>         as well as our efforts to mitigate them. Our actions
>         are justified and to imply otherwise is not only inaccurate
>         but does nothing to move this PDP forward.
>
>
>     Your actions were unilateral and (in my opinion) violated your
>     registrar agreement(s) with ICANN.  You're allowed to block
>     ABUSIVE behavior, but you blocked many many requests with
>     absolutely no evidence of abuse!  How can you justify that???
>
>     Patrick Klos
>     Phishcop Admin
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180218/25f4e61b/attachment.html>