[Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps

Fri Nov 12 19:31:50 UTC 2010

Kim,

I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions".

As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes. 

Regards,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM
> To: Smith, Bill
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
> 
> Hi Bill:
> 
> I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I
> submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any
> policy review and development.  In light of that, we will have to
> eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will
> be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS.  I truly agree
> with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests
> which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation
> to ascertain and determine as many views as possible.  However, this
> raises three major problems:
> 
> 1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly
> significant amount of education.  When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and
> development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive
> background information to explain the WHOIS issues.  Also, we had
> various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further
> information from our stakeholders.
> 
> 2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there
> comes a fairly large amount of disinterest.  We always related it to
> electricity.  We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the
> outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have
> no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies,
> regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services.
> 
> 3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge
> amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible.
> Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the
> enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community
> only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any
> understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of
> this new TLD initiative.
> 
> Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our
> stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each.
> 
> Kim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote:
> 
> > Hi Kim,
> >
> > I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you
> have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us
> to invite input.
> >
> > However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and
> consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and
> concerns of one group against the other.
> >
> > As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some
> consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS
> records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy
> vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want
> anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents)
> while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the
> security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing,
> malware, and the like).
> >
> > In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and
> restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups,
> regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective,
> that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain
> pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same
> time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS.
> >
> > Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit,
> for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my
> opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to
> resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I
> believe we need a different approach for a way forward.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca]
> >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM
> >> To: Smith, Bill
> >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
> >>
> >> Hi Bill:
> >>
> >> I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I
> >> think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the
> >> various stakeholders.  This, of course, raises the issue, as we had
> >> discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.
> >>
> >> I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I
> >> think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates
> so
> >> far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and
> >> registrants in general.  I think that, in general, those three
> groups
> >> will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep
> >> each broad enough.
> >>
> >> In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various
> >> perspective of a number of different interest groups.  I suspect
> that
> >> we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings
> to
> >> provide their respective views.
> >>
> >> Kim
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
> >>
> >>> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation
> regarding
> >> where concerns originate from? I think not.
> >>>
> >>> Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property.
> >> Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need
> for
> >> anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to
> >> phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to
> protect
> >> their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such
> >> scenarios.
> >>>
> >>> I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a
> >> preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-
> >> bounces at icann.org]
> >>>> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM
> >>>> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
> >>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Wilfried:
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark
> >> owners,
> >>>> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect
> >> to,
> >>>> e.g., copyright.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kim
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Kim, Team!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kim G. von Arx wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Emily et al:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment?  Would any member of
> the
> >>>> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this?  Or should we
> >>>> invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic
> >>>> would
> >>>>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for
> the
> >>>> Sunday
> >>>>> get-together.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or
> >>>> documents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have
> >>>> started most of the work already.  My thinking is that our face to
> >> face
> >>>> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke
> >>>> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as
> >>>> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus.  I
> >> would
> >>>> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder
> >>>> constituency to bring their concerns to the table.  With respect
> to
> >>>> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to
> face
> >>>> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the
> >>>> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive
> work
> >> for
> >>>> the remaining 1.5 days.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this.  I'd like to
> propose
> >>>> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during
> >> our
> >>>> mandate
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize
> >> our
> >>>> face to face time as much as possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK for me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to:
> >>>>>>> 	- the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees
> >>>>>>> 	- the Board
> >>>>>>> 	- any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with
> >> the
> >>>> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask
> >> them
> >>>> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to
> >> our
> >>>> task.   Would it be possible for those who have been put forward
> by
> >>>> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those
> meetings
> >>>> and help lead the discussions?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> agreed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Our next call
> >>>>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global
> >> perspective
> >>>>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> agreed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >> --
> >>>> ----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wilfried
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Rt4-whois mailing list
> >>>> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Rt4-whois mailing list
> >>> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> >