[Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps

Fri Nov 12 19:57:42 UTC 2010

Limiting in what way, if we're willing to consider a more fine-grained approach to accessing the information?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 11:47 AM
> To: Smith, Bill
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
> 
> Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there
> numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc.
> 
> Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within
> predetermined groups of interest.
> 
> Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie,
> keep is a broad as possible.
> 
> Kim
> 
> Please excuse my typos!  This is sent from my iPhone.
> 
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 14:31, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >>>
> >