[Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps

sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk
Sat Nov 13 06:09:44 UTC 2010 


NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 

-- Converted from text/plain format -->



I would be very interested in having a presentation on previous Whois
Reviews, their findings, outcomes, learning points etc.,

Sharon

Sharon Lemon OBE. Deputy Director e-Crime, Crime Techniques, Prevention
and Alerts | Serious Organised Crime Agency | PO BOX 8000 | London |
SE11 5EN | Tel: +44 (0)20 7238 8583 | Mobile: +44 (0)7768 290902 |
Email: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk 

Get Safe Online Week 2010 runs from 15th-19th November. Visit the
website to learn more or follow us on twitter @GetSafeOnline Get Safe
Online is a joint initiative between the Government, the Serious
Organised Crime Agency, and public and private sector sponsors from the
worlds of technology, communication, retail and finance to raise
awareness of internet security, and help individuals and smaller
businesses in the UK to use the internet confidently and safely.



-----Original Message-----
From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Smith, Bill
Sent: 12 November 2010 19:32
To: Kim G. von Arx
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps


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
> >


=0A_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to
assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and
may be the subject of lawful business monitoring.  E-Mail may be passed
at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on
authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This
E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.



This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677.

All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring.  E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.



The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

More information about the Rt4-whois mailing list