- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] [At-Large] Thick Whois
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 15, 2013

Jan. 15, 2013

Good catch Michele. Not confusion on my part, just sloppy writing. I acknowledge and know well the WHOIS dataset is merely a subset of registrant data. A missing word 'includes' is required to set it right: "We call lessees 'registrants' and that data collected '*includes*' the WHOIS 'data set'". - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight < michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > Holly, Carlton et al > > Reading over some of the comments from Holly and Carlton I think there's a > small bit of potential confusion. > > Whois data and registrant/ registration data seem to be used as if they > were interchangeable - they're not. > > Whois => gets displayed (at the moment) > Registrant / registration data => what's collected which may (or may not) > be displayed > > These two concepts or labels should be differentiated. > > There are currently two gTLDs that respect EU privacy law. > > One, .cat, relaunched their whois with the new policy last week, as was > previously mentioned. > The other, .tel, has been running their whois with full respect for EU > privacy law since they launched AND they've always had a policy to allow > LEA gain access when required. > > Regards > > Michele > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://mneylon.tel/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > _______________________________________________ > WHOIS-WG mailing list > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 15, 2013

Jan. 15, 2013

With respect to gTLDS - purposely draw for distinction against ccTLDs - the larger problem is philosophical; the Internet as commons, a resource accessible to all peoples. This is about whether we concede rules for the commons that all must obey, regardless of provenance, location or how exceptional - or worthy of exception - we think we are. WHOIS is a perfect setting for the evolving tragedy of the commons. In some ways the .cat business is a red herring, since it has all the trappings of a private club and with restricted access. [I can't wait for the contest surrounding the so-called 'private' gTLDs in this round.] Current WHOIS policy commits registrars to collect and store certain pieces of data, inclusive of personal data, from all lessees of domain names. We call lessees 'registrants' and that data collected the WHOIS 'data set'. Current policy also compels registrars to make this data available on request by one or other means. The policy does not address use thereafter. And it expressly redlines access for ordinary Internet users; registrars may not place any hindrance whatsoever to their access. The WHOIS debate surrounds four (4) top-of-mind issues: Compliance, Accuracy, Access and Enforcement. For the arguments to take hold, these are now viewed thru the lens of certain 'rights' and 'freedoms', be those justiciable or notional. Never the collective responsibilities. There is the right to privacy, to be left alone, to be anonymous and to be forgotten. Like the moving finger of Khayyam's verse, to write and move on. Except in this case, to be blotted from consciousness and from memory. Or, concession granted, to be ignored. Then there is the right to be informed. And by extending some arguments, to be misinformed. There is the freedom of thought, of conscience and of speech. The freedom to freely access information, to impinge or impose one's presence on others on the commons without let or hindrance. All rights and freedoms are equal and indivisible. Some channel Orwell in disputation here. They contend some rights are definitely more equal than others. The little fellas, sometimes labeled 'usual suspects' are of a mind here. They make a self-serving extension to this argument. They say tell me what right or freedom it is. And I will tell you how much of it you have! Of course, authoritatively speaking. Some say registrants equal users, the universal set, indivisible. They are happy to equate/conflate the needs/objectives of all users with the needs/objectives of registrants. And they implicitly accept all needs/objectives as benign. Free peoples everywhere have an unfettered right to redress of grievance; the 'knowing' is the beginning for this process. When these views - or their mashups! - are examined within the WHOIS context, they together produce a frothy blend, all the way from the philosophical thru the political, even to the far plainly contrarian edge. Some tend to the philosophical belief that if one chooses to be on the commons then there are no rules to which one could be compelled. So therefore collection of any data whatsoever, regardless of intended use, is a rank violation of rights and privileges to which one is entitled. By extension, one readily accepts inaccurate WHOIS data as indignant pushback against an oppressive regime and scabrous imposition. As Sir Humphrey might have said, a case for 'moral *manoeuvreability*'. Others believe sure, collect. But until we can guarantee use/interpretation of the data, then demand for that data is overreaching. They equally fervently hold that to impose pre-screening of anything they themselves would place on the commons for whatever purpose is a squalid attempt to suppress the several freedoms to which they are born. And no, we do not need a referee for this conundrum. Here's the thing. These arguments/beliefs/justifications will not go away with another WHOIS data model or an implementation that allows 'differentiated access'. For long before we get to the access question, there are the questions what to collect and why collect? Someone or thing must decide what and why. Even more acutely political, that agency must account the context in which these questions must be asked. That exists today and the fight is joined. For sure, the new dispensation that is wished comes with access questions. Yes, questions. I can see the battle lines now. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Patrick Vande Walle < patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> wrote: > While on the subject, it is worth noting, as Michele Neylon pointed out > on his blog, that the .Cat Registry Whois Now Respects EU Privacy Laws > > http://www.internetnews.me/2013/01/10/cat-registry-whois-now-respects-eu-pr… > > Of course, the ICANN process to allow a contracted party to simply obey > the law is than optimal. It could be made less burdensome by simply > including a one-liner in agreements stating that the the provisions > regarding the WHOIS which are contrary to the local law are void. > > Anyway, this once again demonstrates that the current WHOIS system is > broken, and that we need a replacement ASAP. The work on WEIRDS/RDAP is > well advanced, as are several open source implementations. > It will allow differentiated access. However, it is not up to IETF to > draft the policies regarding this. One suggestion the ALAC could make is to > start right away with designing the policy side. It will take time. So, the > sooner the ICANN community begins, the sooner we will have a working > replacement for the WHOIS that will, at the same time, both address the > LEAs concerns and repect the fundamental rights to privacy and free speech. > > -- > Patrick Vande Walle > > Twitter: twitter.vande-walle.eu > Facebook: facebook.vande-walle.eu > LinkedIn: linkedin.vande-walle.eu > > > > On 10/01/13 16:52, Carlton Samuels wrote: > > This questionnaire with its answers reiterates the ALAC's WHOIS positions > expressed at multiple times and in many places in this one place. > > It gets my support. > > Add the URLs to previous ALAC WHOIS Statements and its good to go. > > -Carlton > Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > >> ALAC input was requested by the ongoing GNSO PDP on mandating a Thick >> Whois for all registries. Although previous ALAC statements made it clear >> that we were strongly in support of Thick Whois, we had not specifically >> addressed all of the issues being discussed in the WG. >> >> A draft reply can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/kIVZAg. >> >> Comments welcome, but note that the target reply date was today. I have >> said that ALAC would be responding but that we would be late, but quick >> action would be appreciated. >> >> A copy is also attached here for your convenience. >> <http://linkedin.vande-walle.eu> > > > > _______________________________________________ > WHOIS-WG mailing list > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy >

2 1

Thick Whois Comment - Final
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 15, 2013

Jan. 15, 2013

I have revised the reply to the Thick Whois PDP WQ (https://community.icann.org/x/kIVZAg) based on a suggestion from Evan on competition, and one issue raised by Michele Neylon on local law violation (not in the form of a suggestion, but an issue that merits ALAC comment). The Wiki points to both a redline version showing the changes and a final version. Given that there have been no negative comments to the original statement, and additional changes submitted during the last few days, I request that Olivier initiate a formal vote on this document. Alan

2 2

Re: [ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 14, 2013

Jan. 14, 2013

Thanks Carlton. Can you or staff provide URLs?? Alan At 10/01/2013 10:52 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Add the URLs to previous ALAC WHOIS Statements and its good to go.

3 3

The ESADT, Board Seat 15 and voting
by Avri Doria Jan. 14, 2013

Jan. 14, 2013

Hi, I just submitted a blog piece on my disappointment that we will not be seeing a vote the next time ALAC selects someone for the ICANN Board. http://avri.doria.org/post/40444728591/letinternetusersvote avri

4 7

Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: Statements for votes just opened
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 11, 2013

Jan. 11, 2013

I don't think there is an intent to restart the vote, but of course that is not my call. The changes were complete for the TMCH statement at 00:40 UTC and only altered the sentence regarding the ALAC not having received the staff analysis of whether light TMC notice was considered to be implentation. Before the correction, it read "In the absence of such a convincing rationale, the ALAC must consider this matter to be a policy issue and that while staff has taken the position that this is implementation, it has not offered any useful rationale for this stance." After, it read "In the absence of such a convincing rationale, the ALAC must consider this matter to be a policy issue that requires GNSO attention." The changes for the INGO/IGO statement were completed at 00:47 UTC. They changed the one word noted below and inserted the preamble. If you voted before those times and you feel that the changes would have altered how you voted, I am sure that Matt can factor that in if you give him the details. Based on the earlier feed back, I would not expect any votes to change over these modifications. Alan At 10/01/2013 08:01 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >So, are we voting again? > >-ed > >On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >These vote starting caught me by surprise as I was just in the >process of making some minor changes. > >The have now been made. > >In the Trademark Clearinghouse statement >(<https://community.icann.org/x/KYlEAg>https://community.icann.org/x/KYlEAg) >the change was to add the word >"convincing" in our evaluation of the proposed "light" trademark >claims, and to remove some text that Olivier inadvertently included. > >In the IGO/INGO statement >(<https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg>https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg) I >made a small change suggested by Evan (Internet website(s) ==> >Internet activities) and added the preamble that I had suggested and >several people agreed was a good idea. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential >and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of >the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you >must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have >received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete >this message immediately.

2 1

IMPORTANT: Statements for votes just opened
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 11, 2013

Jan. 11, 2013

These vote starting caught me by surprise as I was just in the process of making some minor changes. The have now been made. In the Trademark Clearinghouse statement (https://community.icann.org/x/KYlEAg) the change was to add the word "convincing" in our evaluation of the proposed "light" trademark claims, and to remove some text that Olivier inadvertently included. In the IGO/INGO statement (https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg) I made a small change suggested by Evan (Internet website(s) ==> Internet activities) and added the preamble that I had suggested and several people agreed was a good idea. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 10, 2013

Jan. 10, 2013

This questionnaire with its answers reiterates the ALAC's WHOIS positions expressed at multiple times and in many places in this one place. It gets my support. Add the URLs to previous ALAC WHOIS Statements and its good to go. -Carlton Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > ALAC input was requested by the ongoing GNSO PDP on mandating a Thick > Whois for all registries. Although previous ALAC statements made it clear > that we were strongly in support of Thick Whois, we had not specifically > addressed all of the issues being discussed in the WG. > > A draft reply can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/**kIVZAg<https://community.icann.org/x/kIVZAg> > . > > Comments welcome, but note that the target reply date was today. I have > said that ALAC would be responding but that we would be late, but quick > action would be appreciated. > > A copy is also attached here for your convenience. > > Alan > _______________________________________________ > WHOIS-WG mailing list > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy >

1 0

Revision of IGO/INGO Protections statement
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 10, 2013

Jan. 10, 2013

After reviewing the paper submitted by Jovan Kurbalija (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2013/002781.html) I have made a number of revisions to the draft ALAC statement at https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg. The changes cover the following issues: 1. Make it explicit that we want IGOs and INGOs to be given special protection only after a careful evaluation of their specific issues and needs. This was already implied by our specifying that they had to demonstrate need and to meet a number of other criteria. 2. We had already said that some of the suggested IOC protections were over broad because they propose a world-wide Internet blocking of a name that might have previously been protected in a only small number of countries. A new paragraph generalized that to IGOs pointing out that an IGO can exist with only three countries signing a treaty, and that is not sufficient for requesting global protection. 3. Jovan's paper had reasonably included that a rationale for requesting protection could be that some entity could do an organization great harm and thus endanger the public interest by using their name in a domain name. We had only included user-related issues, so I added this one as well. It is not likely to have many real applications, but is a reasonable addition. The rest of the statement, in my opinion, is generally in line with Jovan's recommendations. If others feel differently, please let us know your concerns. Due to time constraints, I have not reviewed these changes with Evan, but have no doubt he will speak up if he has a problem with any of them. A Redline PDF is attached to the Wiki page so you can see the exact changes. One more thing that I have thought of doing but would welcome input on, is to add a preamble saying that these "special protections" are in effect global blocking of specific names, a concept that ICANN and the Internet has generally avoided, and specifically has refused when requested by the IP and Business communities. If ICANN if going to offer such protections to IGOs and INGOs, we need to make sure that there are real harms if we do not do so, and that the protections will in fact prohibit such harms. As it stands now, we have little evidence of such harms, particularly for IGOs, and we have little evidence that protecting exact matches only will be of significant help. Alan

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 10, 2013

Jan. 10, 2013

I certainly support the official adoption of Jovan's excellent paper as the ALAC Framework on the Protection of IGO and INGO names. And, Jovan, a teacher can preach if you do what the Kennedy school folks do. Alternate between 'preaching' and working with the 'Administration.' You could designate one as 'sabatical.' :) Best regards, Rinalia Rinalia Abdul Rahim sent via galaxy tab On 10 Jan 2013 03:35, "Jovan Kurbalija" <jovank(a)diplomacy.edu> wrote: > Thank you Rinalia, > > Dear ALAC-members, > > I hope that my input will be useful in preparing ALAC's position on this > issue. Here are a few comments: > > - the input uses rather restrictive legal approach aims at reducing > exceptions (RCRC/IOC) and synchornising the IGO/INGO's policy with both > international public law and ICANN's overall policy. This approach could > provide elements for a reasonable compromise with a solid legal basis. > > - one can anticipate a broader legal argumentation supporting public > interest function of IGOs as the reason for providing special protection. > This argumentation could be based on international customary law supported > by the formulation in the Paris convention on IPR and a few court cases > such as the ICJ's Reparation case. This hypothetical approach has quite a > few weaknesses, which I elaborate in the academic paper (to be published in > March 2013). > > - My contribution is made in personal capacity. DiploFoundation, as a > capacity-building institution, does not engage in policy deliberations. "A > teacher cannot be a preacher" even if teacher supports a good cause. > > Please let me know if I can be of any additional help. > > Best regards, Jovan > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear ALAC colleagues, >> >> Please find attached a paper contribution by Dr. Jovan Kurbalija of >> DiploFoundation, which is intended to provide an input to the ALAC’s >> discussion on the protection of names of international inter-governmental >> organisations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organisations >> (INGOs). The ALAC Excom had agreed to solicit Dr. Kurbalija's input on >> this topic to help inform ALAC interventions. >> >> Dr. Kurbalija is copied on this mail in case you wish to have some >> interaction with him regarding the topic. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rinalia >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: >> >>> The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has requested that >>> ACs and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to special >>> protections of IGO/INGO names. >>> >>> Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and >>> possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at >>> https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg. Input was requested to be >>> submitted by 08 January 2013, but there should be no problem with getting >>> it in a bit later. >>> >>> Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were substantive >>> and the document has his support. We both believe that it conforms well to >>> positions previously taken by the ALAC. >>> >>> I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to a formal >>> ALAC vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do need to >>> ensure that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to general ALAC >>> feelings. So please post your comments to the Wiki. >>> >>> A copy is attached here for your convenience. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> ALAC Working Wiki: >>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>> >> >> > > > -- > > *Jovan Kurbalija, Phd* > > Director, DiploFoundation > > Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva *|** *Switzerland > > *Tel.* +41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.* +41 (0) 797884226 > > *Email: *jovank(a)diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija > > > > *The latest from Diplo:* today – this week – this month<http://www.diplomacy.edu/currently> > *l* Evolution of diplomacy and technology (2013 calendar, articles and > webinars) <http://www.diplomacy.edu/2013/evolution> *l** *Wisdom and > empathy in diplomacy<http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/wisdom-and-empathy-diplomacy> > > * *

1 0