[Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps

Sat Nov 13 12:49:25 UTC 2010

Kim G. von Arx wrote:

> Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc. 

I think that we are living in a sort of 3-dimensional universe, like:

- which elements of data are collected (see AoC definition for a first cut)?

- which elements c|should be publicly visible?

- for any restricted elements, which parties c|should have access?
  . and as a sub-issue here,
    under which provisions and/or (legal) control & notification scheme?

Of course some people prefer simplistic solutions like "no access at all"
and "everything has to be public". I do have my own preference and point
of view, but I guess that is for a different thread.

> Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within predetermined groups of interest. 

I agree, some sort of aggregation and clustering will have to happen to
prevent us from getting confused and derailed

> Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie, keep is a broad as possible. 

Which may get us back to restart the thinking on mechanisms for manageable
input, comment and feedback mechanisms (othe than the obvious outreach to
identified bodies and in meetings?

> Kim

Wilfried

> Please excuse my typos!  This is sent from my iPhone. 

PS: same here, although I don't need the help of a mobile device for
    my creations. I profoundly apologize, it is never my intention to
    misuse the English language or to make my contributions hard to read

> 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
>>>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 