WHOIS Stalemate: more studies, any you'd like?
Colleagues, The GNSO Council has just concluded the WHOIS PDP by refusing to endorse the Working Group's Operational Point of Contact recommendations. They also, on a closer margin, voted down the negotiation-forcing sunset proposal. Instead, the Council called for more studies. While many of us would have preferred to see action, after five years of WHOIS debate, at-large can contribute to the definition of these studies. Are there concrete questions about WHOIS harms, benefits, or alternatives that you (ALSs, individuals, and all) would like to see addressed with data-driven research? According to the draft of the motion passed, "Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements no later than February 15th, 2008." I'm assuming ALAC should pass its recommendations to the Council through Alan. Council will be preparing a Board submission shortly, and I'm happy to convey ALAC's comments when that is discussed. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
Are there concrete questions about WHOIS harms, benefits, or alternatives that you (ALSs, individuals, and all) would like to see addressed with data-driven research?
Any research with a bunch of credible (ie, not from the IP constituency) lawyers from all around the world and/or with the appropriate authorities, about whether and how the current policy violates the various national privacy laws, could be useful. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
As the current proposals seemed more ad hoc than anything, further studies are certainly appropriate, rather than the normal policy of 'let's see who we can please that matters to us' approach. However, Vittorio, how can you say IP lawyers are less credible? Especially in this group - that's supposed to be my job! - kidding ;) And, when did technical issues turn into a legal issue anyway? I think what would be useful though, is 1) real legal opinions, combined with 2) real technical opinions, and of course 3) the viewpoints of registrants, which by the way are normally overlooked in favor of the registrars. I like the OPOC idea and thought it was a good move, much better than the current scenario. However, I think we should address the privacy issues before chiseling the next version of WHOIS into the proverbial stone. The technical issues are no where near as bad as the registrars would have us think. But once again, it is the registrants who fund this industry. aloha, RJ A@L On 10/31/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
Are there concrete questions about WHOIS harms, benefits, or alternatives that you (ALSs, individuals, and all) would like to see addressed with data-driven research?
Any research with a bunch of credible (ie, not from the IP constituency) lawyers from all around the world and/or with the appropriate authorities, about whether and how the current policy violates the various national privacy laws, could be useful. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
RJGlass | America@Large ha scritto:
However, Vittorio, how can you say IP lawyers are less credible? Especially in this group - that's supposed to be my job! - kidding ;)
Apologies :) I just meant to say that we should ask to lawyers who do not have clients that have a vested interest in how the rules are interpreted, ie are not being paid to support a particular interpretation of the rules. And there's nothing bad in being paid to that purpose, it's just that the study should be unbiased (so I would also reject lawyers who are being paid to support an opposite interpretation of the rules, of course, though that's a much less frequent situation). -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Any study of WHOIS that does not include representation from end-users (note that end-users and domain registrants are not interchangable terms -- domain registrants are, in fact, a percentage of end-users) will be flawed and lack credibility. My neighbor doesn't register domains. My nephew doesn't, either. Nor does my mother. They should have a representative voice. The real data I have seen, as I have said before, tells me end-users do not value privacy of domain name registrants over stability, security and fraud issues. If you have not read this and the accompanying user comments, please do so: http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/to-some-its-the.html The end-user voice has been missing from all the back-and-forth over this issue over the last five years. And that's why ICANN and its constituent communities have failed to make progress. -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:03 PM To: RJGlass | America@Large Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] WHOIS Stalemate: more studies, any you'd like? RJGlass | America@Large ha scritto:
However, Vittorio, how can you say IP lawyers are less credible? Especially in this group - that's supposed to be my job! - kidding ;)
Apologies :) I just meant to say that we should ask to lawyers who do not have clients that have a vested interest in how the rules are interpreted, ie are not being paid to support a particular interpretation of the rules. And there's nothing bad in being paid to that purpose, it's just that the study should be unbiased (so I would also reject lawyers who are being paid to support an opposite interpretation of the rules, of course, though that's a much less frequent situation). -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org *** Scanned
Brendler, Beau wrote:
Any study of WHOIS that does not include representation from end-users (note that end-users and domain registrants are not interchangable terms -- domain registrants are, in fact, a percentage of end-users) will be flawed and lack credibility.
True. Domain names are cheap mass market products. The end users should be included, if only for the fact that they might register domain names in the future. It is their best interest to get involved in policy making right now.
The real data I have seen, as I have said before, tells me end-users do not value privacy of domain name registrants over stability, security and fraud issues.
Your mileage may vary, and I guess you would find various regional sensibilities. As an example, by and large, Europeans do care about their privacy and they have written very strict laws to protect it. As I mentioned in earlier stages of the whois consultations, the GNSO took the problem from the wrong end. It would have made more sense to first find out what was allowed under the local laws of major countries and find the highest common denominator. Only then could we start elaborating a policy. Even if the GNSO had agreed on the OPOC proposal, I very much doubt it could have been implemented by all registrars/registries throughout the world in a uniform manner, if only for the fact that they are subject to their local laws first, before the ICANN policies. -- Patrick Vande Walle
All of the conclusions on page 5 of the SSAC's report on WHOIS and spam are excellent venues for study and should be considered by the ALAC in an overall response. As for my own suggestion: A third party researcher should seek to ascertain consumer awareness of WHOIS and whether/how it is useful to them. Consumers should not be defined as domain registrants, though respondents should include a representative sample of them. Most consumers do not know WHOIS exists or how to use it. I refer to http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/index.html for possible formulation of a questionnaire. I would be happy to work with anyone on development of the questionnaire, research method, etc., and can offer the possible help of my own organization, Consumer Reports WebWatch. Since this note mentions inclusion of ALSs, individuals and all, I am cc'ing this correspondence to Susan Anthony of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Kristina Rosette of Covington & Burling, and Marilyn Cade of ICT Strategic Consulting and the business constituency, to invite consultation on this or other research topics related to WHOIS and the consumer. Beau Brendler ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wed 10/31/2007 4:30 PM To: At-Large writ small Subject: [At-Large] WHOIS Stalemate: more studies, any you'd like? Colleagues, The GNSO Council has just concluded the WHOIS PDP by refusing to endorse the Working Group's Operational Point of Contact recommendations. They also, on a closer margin, voted down the negotiation-forcing sunset proposal. Instead, the Council called for more studies. While many of us would have preferred to see action, after five years of WHOIS debate, at-large can contribute to the definition of these studies. Are there concrete questions about WHOIS harms, benefits, or alternatives that you (ALSs, individuals, and all) would like to see addressed with data-driven research? According to the draft of the motion passed, "Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements no later than February 15th, 2008." I'm assuming ALAC should pass its recommendations to the Council through Alan. Council will be preparing a Board submission shortly, and I'm happy to convey ALAC's comments when that is discussed. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org *** Scanned
Thank you for this Beau, Perhaps it is the scientist, I once was, emerging once more, but I think it *most worthy* that research is done to establish (quantitativly) the baseline understanding of the At-Large community and indeed and perhaps more importantly the wider 'average internet user' (whomever and whatever that is) on the matters you have listed below... And we (ALAC <=> RALO's <=> ALS's <=> outreach to the "grass roots/ average Internet user") may be a tool that could assist any independant research plan, and implementation. CLO Quoting "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org>:
All of the conclusions on page 5 of the SSAC's report on WHOIS and spam are excellent venues for study and should be considered by the ALAC in an overall response.
As for my own suggestion: A third party researcher should seek to ascertain consumer awareness of WHOIS and whether/how it is useful to them. Consumers should not be defined as domain registrants, though respondents should include a representative sample of them. Most consumers do not know WHOIS exists or how to use it. I refer to http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/index.html for possible formulation of a questionnaire.
I would be happy to work with anyone on development of the questionnaire, research method, etc., and can offer the possible help of my own organization, Consumer Reports WebWatch.
Since this note mentions inclusion of ALSs, individuals and all, I am cc'ing this correspondence to Susan Anthony of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Kristina Rosette of Covington & Burling, and Marilyn Cade of ICT Strategic Consulting and the business constituency, to invite consultation on this or other research topics related to WHOIS and the consumer.
Beau Brendler
________________________________
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wed 10/31/2007 4:30 PM To: At-Large writ small Subject: [At-Large] WHOIS Stalemate: more studies, any you'd like?
Colleagues, The GNSO Council has just concluded the WHOIS PDP by refusing to endorse the Working Group's Operational Point of Contact recommendations. They also, on a closer margin, voted down the negotiation-forcing sunset proposal.
Instead, the Council called for more studies. While many of us would have preferred to see action, after five years of WHOIS debate, at-large can contribute to the definition of these studies.
Are there concrete questions about WHOIS harms, benefits, or alternatives that you (ALSs, individuals, and all) would like to see addressed with data-driven research?
According to the draft of the motion passed, "Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements no later than February 15th, 2008." I'm assuming ALAC should pass its recommendations to the Council through Alan.
Council will be preparing a Board submission shortly, and I'm happy to convey ALAC's comments when that is discussed.
Thanks, --Wendy
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
*** Scanned
Beau: I'm quite active in the privacy / data protection commissioners community - and will communicate to them the opportunity to possible collaborate on this very important follow-up to the WHOIS issue. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 31-Oct-07, at 7:43 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
All of the conclusions on page 5 of the SSAC's report on WHOIS and spam are excellent venues for study and should be considered by the ALAC in an overall response.
As for my own suggestion: A third party researcher should seek to ascertain consumer awareness of WHOIS and whether/how it is useful to them. Consumers should not be defined as domain registrants, though respondents should include a representative sample of them. Most consumers do not know WHOIS exists or how to use it. I refer to http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/index.html for possible formulation of a questionnaire.
I would be happy to work with anyone on development of the questionnaire, research method, etc., and can offer the possible help of my own organization, Consumer Reports WebWatch.
Since this note mentions inclusion of ALSs, individuals and all, I am cc'ing this correspondence to Susan Anthony of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Kristina Rosette of Covington & Burling, and Marilyn Cade of ICT Strategic Consulting and the business constituency, to invite consultation on this or other research topics related to WHOIS and the consumer.
Beau Brendler
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wed 10/31/2007 4:30 PM To: At-Large writ small Subject: [At-Large] WHOIS Stalemate: more studies, any you'd like?
Colleagues, The GNSO Council has just concluded the WHOIS PDP by refusing to endorse the Working Group's Operational Point of Contact recommendations. They also, on a closer margin, voted down the negotiation-forcing sunset proposal.
Instead, the Council called for more studies. While many of us would have preferred to see action, after five years of WHOIS debate, at- large can contribute to the definition of these studies.
Are there concrete questions about WHOIS harms, benefits, or alternatives that you (ALSs, individuals, and all) would like to see addressed with data-driven research?
According to the draft of the motion passed, "Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements no later than February 15th, 2008." I'm assuming ALAC should pass its recommendations to the Council through Alan.
Council will be preparing a Board submission shortly, and I'm happy to convey ALAC's comments when that is discussed.
Thanks, --Wendy
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
*** Scanned
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
participants (7)
-
Brendler, Beau -
cheryl＠hovtek.com.au -
Patrick Vande Walle -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Robert Guerra -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer