[Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps

Kim G. von Arx kim at vonarx.ca
Fri Nov 12 21:34:39 UTC 2010 

Hi Bill: 

I was just referring to your two groupings of access and no access which may be limiting in the sense that each of those groups have various subsets with respect to what data they want/need to have access or restrict access to.  The difference, of course, is the reason for those differing needs/wants.  In order for us to conduct a successful and effective review, we need to understand those reasons.  My point in my previous email was that we need to establish interest groups to not get bogged down with 1000s of individual views.

Having said that, however, I do agree with you that we ought to ensure that we do not get tangled up in the past trench wars and as such need to be careful where and how we tread.   

Kim 



On 12 Nov 2010, at 14:57, Smith, Bill wrote:

> 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
>>>>> 
>>>

More information about the Rt4-whois mailing list