Updates on the WHOIS WG
The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to this list message: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html> Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement and individuals to adopt. As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call. The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that view. I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're not participating directly in the WG. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Dear Wendy, thank you for the update. I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much welcome your advice. Best Annette Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to this list message: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html>
Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement and individuals to adopt.
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that view.
I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're not participating directly in the WG.
--Wendy
Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting? I had no knowledge as to whether persons not on the committee could join the call, and only learned that possibility after call had commenced. On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de> wrote:
Dear Wendy,
thank you for the update. I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much welcome your advice.
Best Annette
Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to this list message: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html>
Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement and individuals to adopt.
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that view.
I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're not participating directly in the WG.
--Wendy
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
Michael: There is no barrier to non-ALAC members attending the call. That said, every additional person on the call adds to the cost, and it already costs about US$12,000 per year for these calls, so I would hope that the community could use the recordings of the calls, the verbatim transcripts, and the summary minutes and not attend the calls in person as well. Otherwise, we will cut into the budget provision for teleconferences which exists for RALO teleconferences... On 10 Jul 2007, at 14:56, Michael Maranda wrote:
Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting? I had no knowledge as to whether persons not on the committee could join the call, and only learned that possibility after call had commenced.
On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de> wrote: Dear Wendy,
thank you for the update. I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much welcome your advice.
Best Annette
Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to this list message: < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html>
Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement and individuals to adopt.
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that view.
I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're not participating directly in the WG.
--Wendy
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http:// www.digitalaccessalliance.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
Regardless of cost, open meetings are open meetings, and if they are, then it should be clear with each and every announcement of same. This is helpful for newcomers to the process, and we hope there will be a continuing stream of newcomers.... such measures as clear statements around what is open and what is happening will provide orientation. Yes it is a tad repetitive, but thats the price we need to pay. Bits can be recycled. BTW, are the minutes of the prior ALAC meeting (in SJ) publicly available? On 7/10/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
Michael: There is no barrier to non-ALAC members attending the call. That said, every additional person on the call adds to the cost, and it already costs about US$12,000 per year for these calls, so I would hope that the community could use the recordings of the calls, the verbatim transcripts, and the summary minutes and not attend the calls in person as well. Otherwise, we will cut into the budget provision for teleconferences which exists for RALO teleconferences...
On 10 Jul 2007, at 14:56, Michael Maranda wrote:
Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting? I had no knowledge as to whether persons not on the committee could join the call, and only learned that possibility after call had commenced.
On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de> wrote:
Dear Wendy,
thank you for the update. I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much welcome your advice.
Best Annette
Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to this list message: < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html>
Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement and individuals to adopt.
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her
direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that view.
I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're not participating directly in the WG.
--Wendy
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
I'm afraid we do have to worry about cost - we cannot end up in a situation where we have run out of funds to have meetings at all simply because people want to be on the call. There is no closed meeting in At-Large that I have ever experienced - if one were closed, it would be identified as such. The meetings, transcriptions, and recordings are being posted as they become available for SJ. On 10 Jul 2007, at 15:35, Michael Maranda wrote:
Regardless of cost, open meetings are open meetings, and if they are, then it should be clear with each and every announcement of same. This is helpful for newcomers to the process, and we hope there will be a continuing stream of newcomers.... such measures as clear statements around what is open and what is happening will provide orientation. Yes it is a tad repetitive, but thats the price we need to pay. Bits can be recycled.
BTW, are the minutes of the prior ALAC meeting (in SJ) publicly available?
On 7/10/07, Nick Ashton-Hart < nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote: Michael:
There is no barrier to non-ALAC members attending the call. That said, every additional person on the call adds to the cost, and it already costs about US$12,000 per year for these calls, so I would hope that the community could use the recordings of the calls, the verbatim transcripts, and the summary minutes and not attend the calls in person as well. Otherwise, we will cut into the budget provision for teleconferences which exists for RALO teleconferences...
On 10 Jul 2007, at 14:56, Michael Maranda wrote:
Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting? I had no knowledge as to whether persons not on the committee could join the call, and only learned that possibility after call had commenced.
On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de > wrote: Dear Wendy,
thank you for the update. I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much welcome your advice.
Best Annette
Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to this list message: < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html >
Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement and individuals to adopt.
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that view.
I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're not participating directly in the WG.
--Wendy
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http:// www.digitalaccessalliance.org
Thats not the point, and it isn't a denial of the "reality of the costs". Clear statement of the openness and appropriate dissemination of meeting details is the point... On 7/10/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
I'm afraid we do have to worry about cost - we cannot end up in a situation where we have run out of funds to have meetings at all simply because people want to be on the call. There is no closed meeting in At-Large that I have ever experienced - if one were closed, it would be identified as such.
The meetings, transcriptions, and recordings are being posted as they become available for SJ.
On 10 Jul 2007, at 15:35, Michael Maranda wrote:
Regardless of cost, open meetings are open meetings, and if they are, then it should be clear with each and every announcement of same. This is helpful for newcomers to the process, and we hope there will be a continuing stream of newcomers.... such measures as clear statements around what is open and what is happening will provide orientation. Yes it is a tad repetitive, but thats the price we need to pay. Bits can be recycled.
BTW, are the minutes of the prior ALAC meeting (in SJ) publicly available?
On 7/10/07, Nick Ashton-Hart < nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
Michael: There is no barrier to non-ALAC members attending the call. That said, every additional person on the call adds to the cost, and it already costs about US$12,000 per year for these calls, so I would hope that the community could use the recordings of the calls, the verbatim transcripts, and the summary minutes and not attend the calls in person as well. Otherwise, we will cut into the budget provision for teleconferences which exists for RALO teleconferences...
On 10 Jul 2007, at 14:56, Michael Maranda wrote:
Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting? I had no knowledge as to whether persons not on the committee could join the call, and only learned that possibility after call had commenced.
On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de > wrote:
Dear Wendy,
thank you for the update. I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much welcome your advice.
Best Annette
Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to this list message: < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html >
Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement and individuals to adopt.
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would
also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal
reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that view.
I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're not participating directly in the WG.
--Wendy
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
Ah good - then I half-misunderstood you; my apologies. Hopefully the sentence on the openness of the meetings answered that question :) On 10 Jul 2007, at 16:04, Michael Maranda wrote:
Thats not the point, and it isn't a denial of the "reality of the costs".
Clear statement of the openness and appropriate dissemination of meeting details is the point...
On 7/10/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote: I'm afraid we do have to worry about cost - we cannot end up in a situation where we have run out of funds to have meetings at all simply because people want to be on the call.
There is no closed meeting in At-Large that I have ever experienced - if one were closed, it would be identified as such.
The meetings, transcriptions, and recordings are being posted as they become available for SJ.
On 10 Jul 2007, at 15:35, Michael Maranda wrote:
Regardless of cost, open meetings are open meetings, and if they are, then it should be clear with each and every announcement of same. This is helpful for newcomers to the process, and we hope there will be a continuing stream of newcomers.... such measures as clear statements around what is open and what is happening will provide orientation. Yes it is a tad repetitive, but thats the price we need to pay. Bits can be recycled.
BTW, are the minutes of the prior ALAC meeting (in SJ) publicly available?
On 7/10/07, Nick Ashton-Hart < nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote: Michael:
There is no barrier to non-ALAC members attending the call. That said, every additional person on the call adds to the cost, and it already costs about US$12,000 per year for these calls, so I would hope that the community could use the recordings of the calls, the verbatim transcripts, and the summary minutes and not attend the calls in person as well. Otherwise, we will cut into the budget provision for teleconferences which exists for RALO teleconferences...
On 10 Jul 2007, at 14:56, Michael Maranda wrote:
Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting? I had no knowledge as to whether persons not on the committee could join the call, and only learned that possibility after call had commenced.
On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de > wrote: Dear Wendy,
thank you for the update. I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much welcome your advice.
Best Annette
Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to this list message: < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html >
Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement and individuals to adopt.
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that view.
I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're not participating directly in the WG.
--Wendy
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
The July report of ccNSO liaison is now posted to ALAC Wiki. Siavash
Thanks Siavash Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:05 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Liaison reports The July report of ccNSO liaison is now posted to ALAC Wiki. Siavash _______________________________________________ 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM
Yes, I thought I had signed up for the WG, but this is the first I've heard of anything regarding progress. However, since I just opened the doc and it's 23 pages, it'll have to wait until I get some time. But, I do have some input: 1) First and foremost, I'm getting irritated at everyone using phishing as the antagonist to every situation. I've heard it used incorrectly for domain tasting and I've heard it used incorrectly for the reason for full disclosure in whois. I'd like to think we've all got more intellect than to keep pulling this subject out of thin air. 2) I don't believe that 'law enforcement' should have complete and unlimited access at all times to whois if there is a privacy provision. If there is a privacy provision invoked, then they should have to go through appropriate channels to gain this information. Point of reason from an American perspective: law enforcement used to have to practice due diligence in acting on search warrants prior to the nazi takeover. Now that level of due diligence has been reduced to the level of ordering a pizza it has caused more problems than it has solved and contributed to the erosion of American ideals while doing little for 'real' law enforcement. Imagine this lack of due diligence on a global scale. oh, please just wait to see what trouble this can cause. sidenote: the criminals aren't always on the inside of the jailcell. 3) Regarding #2, I think there should be a privacy provision of some type. The whois is similar to a phonebook, and if someone wants their info unlisted I think we should afford that option. Not just a facade option that exists today, but a real option. 4) For situations that require technical need for use of whois, the data should be available and unmasked. Namely, for technical and financial purposes, that data should be available to the designated parties but not available to others not having the need to know. In my opinion, the issue is what data should go where and available to whom. 5) The current format of whois policies are outdated and should be thoroughly revised. 6) There seems to be a complete lack of responsibility on part of service providers (registrars, et al) in keeping their fiduciary responsibility of whois data. Or, for that matter any records that could be reasonably queried without a court order. 7) I don't think the whois should be a 'public' database. 8) As usual, I don't think the policy development of such issues should be rushed along or done haphazardly. Rather, it should be done with thoughtfulness and concern. Randy Glass A@L On 7/10/07, Michael Maranda <mmaranda@afcn.org> wrote:
Is there a clear policy on who can join this meeting? I had no knowledge as to whether persons not on the committee could join the call, and only learned that possibility after call had commenced.
On 7/10/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de> wrote:
Dear Wendy,
thank you for the update. I hope you are going to take part in our tel conf call today as the Whois issue is important to the individual users and we would very much welcome your advice.
Best Annette
Wendy Seltzer schrieb:
The WHOIS working group is now working around the document attached to this list message: < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00460.html>
Although the OPOC (Operational Point of Contact) is still being discussed, the draft burdens it procedural hurdles that would make it impracticably costly -- such as verification of the OPOC or accreditation with ICANN and status as an agent for the registrant. The intent behind many of these proposals seems, as is common, to prevent adoption of more privacy-respecting WHOIS display. If we don't keep the contact lightweight, it will be too costly for registrars to implement and individuals to adopt.
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her
direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy, at least where there is no legal reason for the registrant's information to be revealed. As an individual participant, I continue to advocate that only due process of law should force disclosure of contact information that individuals choose to protect. I'd be happy to hear support or argument with that view.
I will be happy to join the ALAC call if there is interest in discussing any of these issues. Please let me know, and share your views if you're not participating directly in the WG.
--Wendy
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.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
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
I have been quite vocal in the Whois WG recently, both because I really care about the European privacy model, and because I thought that the concerns of a Board liaison might have some good weight in the group's discussions. Particularly, apart from the desire for privacy that we all share, as a European citizen I find it hard to bear the continuous affirmation of supernational authority and despise for other sovereignties that the IP constituencies try to push onto everyone else. They basically say that they don't care about whatever privacy laws the countries other than the U.S. might have, and they want ICANN to find a way to circumvent those laws. This hits hard not just on the specific right to privacy, but on the basic grounds of international law, and of mutual cultural respect. At the same time, there is, I think, a certain level of disagreement inside the ALAC. Personally, I am not in favour of entirely anonymous registrations, and I think that public law enforcement authorities (public, i.e. subject to due process requirements and public scrutiny and accountability) should have quick and unencumbered access to the entire Whois database. Whatever solution is implemented should not become an obstacle to timely investigation against phishing, spamming, etc., by public authorities (if they want to rely on private parties for help, that's their choice under their own responsibility). However, in the past we had some real discussion inside the ALAC on these points, and perhaps we should work out a common position on them. By the way:
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems like an overextension and loss for privacy,
In Europe, in short, if the registrant is an individual, if the requesting party is not a public law enforcement agency (or falls into another limited set of cases foreseen by law), and if the registrant did not freely consent to this disclosure, REVEAL would be a criminal offence that could be punished with some years in jail. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
I was not able to make the call -- my apologies. Consumers Union's position on Whois, which I have not stated publicly for this group: We are not in favor of anonymous registrations. We would support some registrant privacy-protecting alternatives -- one internal suggestion is that domain escrow services possibly should list themselves as the (a) domain owner(s), and of course be mandated to make records accountable/accessible to law enforcement. We believe law enforcement agencies should have quick access to the entire WHOIS record with appropriate due process. We also believe the quality of WHOIS data should be improved so it is more useful. Consumers Union represents about 7 million consumers in the U.S. and Canada. Demographically we have not sliced the salami so specifically as this, but: our constituency is primarily concerned about being ripped off, spammed or phished. Probably a very small percentage would register or have registered a domain name (which is a piece of survey research I am suggesting we do internally), and therefore very few would care about registrants' privacy rights. We have been involved with a number of international research and advocacy efforts and, speaking very generally, are strongly supportive of the European privacy system/model. My personal views happen to be the same as my organization's. Regards, Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:32 AM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
As this is on the agenda for the WG's July 11 call, <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00491.html> it would be helpful if others who have been participating in the WG's work would also express their concerns, either on list or on the call.
I have been quite vocal in the Whois WG recently, both because I really care about the European privacy model, and because I thought that the concerns of a Board liaison might have some good weight in the group's discussions. Particularly, apart from the desire for privacy that we all share, as a European citizen I find it hard to bear the continuous affirmation of supernational authority and despise for other sovereignties that the IP constituencies try to push onto everyone else. They basically say that they don't care about whatever privacy laws the countries other than the U.S. might have, and they want ICANN to find a way to circumvent those laws. This hits hard not just on the specific right to privacy, but on the basic grounds of international law, and of mutual cultural respect. At the same time, there is, I think, a certain level of disagreement inside the ALAC. Personally, I am not in favour of entirely anonymous registrations, and I think that public law enforcement authorities (public, i.e. subject to due process requirements and public scrutiny and accountability) should have quick and unencumbered access to the entire Whois database. Whatever solution is implemented should not become an obstacle to timely investigation against phishing, spamming, etc., by public authorities (if they want to rely on private parties for help, that's their choice under their own responsibility). However, in the past we had some real discussion inside the ALAC on these points, and perhaps we should work out a common position on them. By the way:
The OPOC's responsibility was conceived as one to pass information along to the registrant, without requiring the registrant to list his or her direct contact information in public WHOIS. Somewhere along the way, the WG has given the OPOC an additional role of REVEALing information when a query is made but not responded to. This too seems
like an overextension and loss for privacy,
In Europe, in short, if the registrant is an individual, if the requesting party is not a public law enforcement agency (or falls into another limited set of cases foreseen by law), and if the registrant did not freely consent to this disclosure, REVEAL would be a criminal offence that could be punished with some years in jail. -- 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
Probably a very small percentage would register or have registered a domain name (which is a piece of survey research I am suggesting we do internally), and therefore very few would care about registrants' privacy rights.
I'll bet that's not quite correct. Just because a person isn't afraid of being stalked because their own home address isn't in the whois database doesn't mean they would support the ability of stalkers to easily find their friends and neighbors. Most people aren't that self- centric ...and I think a healthy concern for others is a hallmark attribute of CU's members. -- Bret
Bret -- That just hasn't come up. We'll do some research. BB -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:36 AM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: Vittorio Bertola; Wendy Seltzer; At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG Probably a very small percentage would register or have registered a domain name (which is a piece of survey research I am suggesting we do internally), and therefore very few would care about registrants' privacy rights. I'll bet that's not quite correct. Just because a person isn't afraid of being stalked because their own home address isn't in the whois database doesn't mean they would support the ability of stalkers to easily find their friends and neighbors. Most people aren't that self-centric ...and I think a healthy concern for others is a hallmark attribute of CU's members. -- Bret *** Scanned
If you ask a person whether he believes that entities sending bulk unsolicited email should be required to publish accurate contact data (name, address, email address, telephone number) for the source of the email in a publicly accessible database, he'll say "YES!" Ask that same person whether his minor daughter should be required to publish her accurate contact data (name, address, email address, telephone number) in a publicly accessible database as a condition of getting an email address, a weblog, or a homepage, and he'll scream "NO!" As with all research, the hard policy choices are between these boundary cases. Wendy has been our point person on whois issues for a long time, and I'm sure she would be happy to help. I can help too. Let us know what you might need to get up to speed. Bret On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
Bret --
That just hasn't come up.
We'll do some research.
BB -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:36 AM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: Vittorio Bertola; Wendy Seltzer; At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG
Probably a very small percentage would register or have registered a domain name (which is a piece of survey research I am suggesting we do internally), and therefore very few would care about registrants' privacy rights.
I'll bet that's not quite correct. Just because a person isn't afraid of being stalked because their own home address isn't in the whois database doesn't mean they would support the ability of stalkers to easily find their friends and neighbors. Most people aren't that self-centric ...and I think a healthy concern for others is a hallmark attribute of CU's members.
-- Bret
*** Scanned
Bret Fausett wrote
Ask that same person whether his minor daughter should be required to publish her accurate contact data (name, address, email address, telephone number) in a publicly accessible database as a condition of getting an email address, a weblog, or a homepage, and he'll scream "NO!" This is overreaction, judging from the thickness of my local telephone directory. Most people have no problem being tracked down to their phone number or address.
People who get Internet access generally do so through an ISP that records fairly detailed information, at least enough for billing purposes, as well as usually an agreement to the ISP's terms of service. Such information is not _publicly_ available, but it's available with a warrant. While I am loathe to get dragged into "what about the children?" analogies, let's go with the one you used. If that minor daughter is engaging in on-line bullying of other kids or other kinds of threats, you're darned right that I want that activity tracable regardless of how loud she or her parents may scream. Privacy measures must never prevent people from facing the consequences of their actions. And being underage does not mean one is incapable of -- or should automatically escape responsibility for -- doing some pretty nasty stuff... The situation is no different for domains. I believe that Beau is saying that legitimate proxy services are OK but that there must be a path to lead to a real source. - Evan
Evan wrote:
I believe that Beau is saying that legitimate proxy services are OK but that there must be a path to lead to a real source.
Yes, that's what CR WebWatch is saying, and me, too. Thanks once again for your eloquence, Evan. -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:02 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: At-Large writ small; Brendler, Beau Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG Bret Fausett wrote
Ask that same person whether his minor daughter should be required to publish her accurate contact data (name, address, email address, telephone number) in a publicly accessible database as a condition of getting an email address, a weblog, or a homepage, and he'll scream "NO!" This is overreaction, judging from the thickness of my local telephone directory. Most people have no problem being tracked down to their phone number or address.
People who get Internet access generally do so through an ISP that records fairly detailed information, at least enough for billing purposes, as well as usually an agreement to the ISP's terms of service. Such information is not _publicly_ available, but it's available with a warrant. While I am loathe to get dragged into "what about the children?" analogies, let's go with the one you used. If that minor daughter is engaging in on-line bullying of other kids or other kinds of threats, you're darned right that I want that activity tracable regardless of how loud she or her parents may scream. Privacy measures must never prevent people from facing the consequences of their actions. And being underage does not mean one is incapable of -- or should automatically escape responsibility for -- doing some pretty nasty stuff... The situation is no different for domains. I believe that Beau is saying that legitimate proxy services are OK but that there must be a path to lead to a real source. - Evan *** Scanned
I believe that Beau is saying that legitimate proxy services are OK but that there must be a path to lead to a real source.
Yes, that's what CR WebWatch is saying, and me, too. Thanks once again for your eloquence, Evan.
Thank you. This is good to know, and, from my personal perspective, it's a fine compromise position. I might go a step further and say more than just that "proxy services are OK," to saying that "ICANN should not prevent legitimate proxy services." The privacy comments I made on the list were simply to underscore the importance of leaving room for the privacy interests. As background, you should know that ICANN's sizable and well-funded intellectual property constituency, among other business interests, believe that they should have the ability to get the real name, address, phone number and email address of a domain name registrant, in real time, without going through a proxy service or any process at all, 'due' or otherwise ;-). -- Bret
In my private practice getting to know the mane and contact data of a domain name owner has proven useful. I undestand that WHOIS data base is also a way of getting addresses for spammig pourposes but we´re not going to stop spammer by eliminating contact data on said data base and we are going to cut the chance of contacting someone for legitimate business or to avoid legal actions. Sorry for the delay on posting my comment José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro@cantv.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Brendler, Beau To: Evan Leibovitch ; Bret Fausett Cc: At-Large writ small Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG Evan wrote:
I believe that Beau is saying that legitimate proxy services are OK but that there must be a path to lead to a real source.
Yes, that's what CR WebWatch is saying, and me, too. Thanks once again for your eloquence, Evan. -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:02 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: At-Large writ small; Brendler, Beau Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG Bret Fausett wrote
Ask that same person whether his minor daughter should be required to publish her accurate contact data (name, address, email address, telephone number) in a publicly accessible database as a condition of getting an email address, a weblog, or a homepage, and he'll scream "NO!" This is overreaction, judging from the thickness of my local telephone directory. Most people have no problem being tracked down to their phone number or address.
People who get Internet access generally do so through an ISP that records fairly detailed information, at least enough for billing purposes, as well as usually an agreement to the ISP's terms of service. Such information is not _publicly_ available, but it's available with a warrant. While I am loathe to get dragged into "what about the children?" analogies, let's go with the one you used. If that minor daughter is engaging in on-line bullying of other kids or other kinds of threats, you're darned right that I want that activity tracable regardless of how loud she or her parents may scream. Privacy measures must never prevent people from facing the consequences of their actions. And being underage does not mean one is incapable of -- or should automatically escape responsibility for -- doing some pretty nasty stuff... The situation is no different for domains. I believe that Beau is saying that legitimate proxy services are OK but that there must be a path to lead to a real source. - Evan *** 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
I undestand that WHOIS data base is also a way of getting addresses for spammig pourposes
That used to be true, but it's not any more. In recent years, spammers have so many other sources of addresses that they don't bother to harvest WHOIS addresses. I have some addresses that appear only in WHOIS, and they don't get very much spam. R's, John
John L ha scritto:
I undestand that WHOIS data base is also a way of getting addresses for spammig pourposes
That used to be true, but it's not any more.
In recent years, spammers have so many other sources of addresses that they don't bother to harvest WHOIS addresses. I have some addresses that appear only in WHOIS, and they don't get very much spam.
Actually, in San Juan the SSAC released a report that says the exact opposite, showing that an email address that is published in Whois (and only there) gets up to 10'000 times more spam (if I remember well) than one that is not. I guess that Robert can provide pointers. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Actually, in San Juan the SSAC released a report that says the exact opposite, showing that an email address that is published in Whois (and only there) gets up to 10'000 times more spam (if I remember well) than one that is not. I guess that Robert can provide pointers.
I'd be most interested to see their technique, since that is the complete opposite of what I've observed. R's, John
On 18-Jul-07, at 4:40 PM, John L wrote:
Actually, in San Juan the SSAC released a report that says the exact opposite, showing that an email address that is published in Whois (and only there) gets up to 10'000 times more spam (if I remember well) than one that is not. I guess that Robert can provide pointers.
I'd be most interested to see their technique, since that is the complete opposite of what I've observed.
John: Here's a copy of SSAC report given at the San Juan Meeting. The Whois report should be out soon, when i see it - i'll give you at the rest of at-large a head's up. In the meantime, here's a summary of the findings... [snipped] Do email addresses in whois lead to spam YES For an email address that is not published anywhere other than the WHOIS When protected-WHOIS is used, it is possible to achieve two orders of magnitude reduction in the amount of spam delivered When Delegated-WHOIS is used, it is possible to achieve three orders of magnitude reduction in the amount of spam delivered When Protected-WHOIS and Delegated-WHOIS are used, it is possible to achieve close to four orders of magnitude reduction in the amount of spam delivered
Vittorio: Indeed you are correct about the SSAC report. However, the report hasn't been published on the ICANN site yet. I'll take a look if a copy was sent to the SSAC list - one that I can post for us on At-large. regards Robert On 18-Jul-07, at 3:06 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
John L ha scritto:
I undestand that WHOIS data base is also a way of getting addresses for spammig pourposes
That used to be true, but it's not any more.
In recent years, spammers have so many other sources of addresses that they don't bother to harvest WHOIS addresses. I have some addresses that appear only in WHOIS, and they don't get very much spam.
Actually, in San Juan the SSAC released a report that says the exact opposite, showing that an email address that is published in Whois (and only there) gets up to 10'000 times more spam (if I remember well) than one that is not. I guess that Robert can provide pointers. -- 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
I believe that the SSAC, in their meetings in San Juan, were provided with evidence that the use of the WHOIS database for spamming is still very much alive and well. I've coped Dave Piscitello in on this email in hopes that he will elaborate (or perhaps tell me that I'm mistaken...) On 18 Jul 2007, at 17:59, John L wrote:
I undestand that WHOIS data base is also a way of getting addresses for spammig pourposes
That used to be true, but it's not any more.
In recent years, spammers have so many other sources of addresses that they don't bother to harvest WHOIS addresses. I have some addresses that appear only in WHOIS, and they don't get very much spam.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
Please pardon my directness, but for lack of time.... I think there is a very fine and fuzzy line between spamming and what you refer to as 'legitimate business'. Yes, indeed many times keeping data confidential is the purpose to avoid the chicken-hawk attorneys* who couldn't get a gig with the recording industry. Similar in instance to 'the corporate veil'. This method is used all over, and is one of the founding principles of corporations. As an example, if I have a worthless opinion about Pepsi, should I be able to contact the chairman to complain? Should my attorney be able to contact him/her at any time? Opinions aside, I think I would have a hard time contacting that person in reality. Certain channels must be followed. But there are corporate documents that provide that info, and usually reverts to another representative (designated agent). Therefore, if I wish to assign a designated agent, or wish to assign an annonymous benefactor, I should have that ability to do so. In my world, there is no good reason to contact me - even during xmas, and nobody under the sun has a legitimate right to contact me for any reason. I don't even answer my phone without verifying the caller beforehand - one good thing about technology. It is what they call a right to privacy. This right is something not well provided to registrants. I volunteer to be contacted by being part of this group, and therefore participate. However, I fail to see how having my email or phone number in the WHOIS has anything to do with anything. Back in the day, it was necessary in order to ensure the right person was contacted if - let's say, servers went down. But, that business is between me and my provider and irrelevant to the DNS. Likewise, if a registrar can identify a regsitrant, if suffices the purpose. Of course, ICANN has the responsibility to identify registrants. Personal identifying factors can take many forms. Everyone refers back to bad-faith and fraud as the reason everything in the world should be public. This is a false pretense. We would have much more luck in preventing spam and fraud if we were to work from the IP level, which actually works most times. *not meant to be directed at anyone unless someone is offended. Randy Glass A@L On 7/18/07, José Ovidio Salgueiro A. <jsalgueiro@cantv.net> wrote:
In my private practice getting to know the mane and contact data of a domain name owner has proven useful.
I undestand that WHOIS data base is also a way of getting addresses for spammig pourposes but we´re not going to stop spammer by eliminating contact data on said data base and we are going to cut the chance of contacting someone for legitimate business or to avoid legal actions.
Sorry for the delay on posting my comment
José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro@cantv.net
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> *To:* Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> ; Bret Fausett<bfausett@internet.law.pro> *Cc:* At-Large writ small <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:15 AM *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG
Evan wrote:
I believe that Beau is saying that legitimate proxy services are OK but that there must be a path to lead to a real source.
Yes, that's what CR WebWatch is saying, and me, too. Thanks once again for your eloquence, Evan.
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:02 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: At-Large writ small; Brendler, Beau Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG
Bret Fausett wrote
Ask that same person whether his minor daughter should be required to publish her accurate contact data (name, address, email address, telephone number) in a publicly accessible database as a condition of getting an email address, a weblog, or a homepage, and he'll scream "NO!" This is overreaction, judging from the thickness of my local telephone directory. Most people have no problem being tracked down to their phone number or address.
People who get Internet access generally do so through an ISP that records fairly detailed information, at least enough for billing purposes, as well as usually an agreement to the ISP's terms of service. Such information is not _publicly_ available, but it's available with a warrant.
While I am loathe to get dragged into "what about the children?" analogies, let's go with the one you used. If that minor daughter is engaging in on-line bullying of other kids or other kinds of threats, you're darned right that I want that activity tracable regardless of how loud she or her parents may scream. Privacy measures must never prevent people from facing the consequences of their actions. And being underage does not mean one is incapable of -- or should automatically escape responsibility for -- doing some pretty nasty stuff...
The situation is no different for domains. I believe that Beau is saying that legitimate proxy services are OK but that there must be a path to lead to a real source.
- Evan
*** 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Everyone refers back to bad-faith and fraud as the reason everything in the world should be public. This is a false pretense. We would have much more luck in preventing spam and fraud if we were to work from the IP level, which actually works most times.
Having been involved with anti-spam advocacy for a decade, I can assure you that IP filtering is pretty much tapped out and all of the new work is related to domains, with relevant buzzwords including SPF, DK, DKIM, Sender-ID, and VBR. We really do need and use domain info, particularly WHOIS info, every day to deal with spam, phishing, and other abuse. Taking out info about the vast majority of domains that are registered by businesses and organizations that are not individuals and do not fall under anyone's privacy laws would be a major step backwards. But see my next message for a more basic question. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
I have always found a major lack of agreement about who the at-large is supposed to be. One group believes it is the domain registrants who are not part of other constituencies, which more or less means individuals (like me) who register personal vanity domains. The other group believes that it's all the Internet users who are not parts of other consitutencies, all the people who have never registered a domain and never will, but use domains every day when they use the Internet. In a lot of areas, the interests of these two groups are the same, e.g., we all would prefer that our registrars were competent and honest. But in a lot of other areas, they aren't, with WHOIS being the most obvious place. Am I the only one who thinks that non-registrants count, or is ALAC a club for vanity registrants? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
All-in-all, I think it's the end-users that At-Large is all about. However, at the current time it is very difficult to expect that 'the individual user' could care less about ICANN or its policies. Since most policy decisions ultimately effect the registrant, it is sufficient to say that they are currently the end-user of ICANN. When talking to people, most people in the industry are still unaware of ICANN, let alone the individual Internet user with an email address. This is where the 'educating' comes into play. I'm not sure if there ever will be a time when the 'Internet user with an email address' will ever have a concern about ICANN. However, the individual registrant is greatly effected by anything that ICANN does or says. Time will tell. Randy Glass A@L On 7/26/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I have always found a major lack of agreement about who the at-large is supposed to be.
One group believes it is the domain registrants who are not part of other constituencies, which more or less means individuals (like me) who register personal vanity domains.
The other group believes that it's all the Internet users who are not parts of other consitutencies, all the people who have never registered a domain and never will, but use domains every day when they use the Internet.
In a lot of areas, the interests of these two groups are the same, e.g., we all would prefer that our registrars were competent and honest. But in a lot of other areas, they aren't, with WHOIS being the most obvious place.
Am I the only one who thinks that non-registrants count, or is ALAC a club for vanity registrants?
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
Randy brings up an important point here -- I think ICANN and the At-Large community need to find ways to help consumers figure out why they should know what ICANN is, and what it does (and what it doesn't do, or can't do, for that matter). This is going to be critical to ALS outreach, especially if the community is seeking participation from consumer groups, as it did with us (we got involved via an invitation from Consumers International). Consumer groups have limited time and resources and are not going to pay much attention if the concerns of the At-Large boil down to the rights and concerns of registrants. -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of RJGlass | America@Large Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:19 AM To: John L Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Who is At-Large, anyway? All-in-all, I think it's the end-users that At-Large is all about. However, at the current time it is very difficult to expect that 'the individual user' could care less about ICANN or its policies. Since most policy decisions ultimately effect the registrant, it is sufficient to say that they are currently the end-user of ICANN. When talking to people, most people in the industry are still unaware of ICANN, let alone the individual Internet user with an email address. This is where the 'educating' comes into play. I'm not sure if there ever will be a time when the 'Internet user with an email address' will ever have a concern about ICANN. However, the individual registrant is greatly effected by anything that ICANN does or says. Time will tell. Randy Glass A@L On 7/26/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: I have always found a major lack of agreement about who the at-large is supposed to be. One group believes it is the domain registrants who are not part of other constituencies, which more or less means individuals (like me) who register personal vanity domains. The other group believes that it's all the Internet users who are not parts of other consitutencies, all the people who have never registered a domain and never will, but use domains every day when they use the Internet. In a lot of areas, the interests of these two groups are the same, e.g., we all would prefer that our registrars were competent and honest. But in a lot of other areas, they aren't, with WHOIS being the most obvious place. Am I the only one who thinks that non-registrants count, or is ALAC a club for vanity registrants? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org *** Scanned
Brendler, Beau ha scritto:
Randy brings up an important point here -- I think ICANN and the At-Large community need to find ways to help consumers figure out why they should know what ICANN is, and what it does (and what it doesn't do, or can't do, for that matter). This is going to be critical to ALS outreach, especially if the community is seeking participation from consumer groups, as it did with us (we got involved via an invitation from Consumers International). Consumer groups have limited time and resources and are not going to pay much attention if the concerns of the At-Large boil down to the rights and concerns of registrants.
Until now the At Large has been more concerned with registrants, but this is IMHO because of two reasons: 1) the lack of a proper "registrant constituency" in the GNSO or elsewhere at ICANN, and 2) the lack of awareness and participation by other types of groups that are nearer to the "pure user" of the Internet. As both things are changing, I would expect the At Large to move more towards the end user side. In any case, I think that our role is to consider all different viewpoints and be sure that we report all of them, and that whatever we propose is reasonable to all the subgroups that participate through us, including the non-technical, non-registrant user of the Internet. (A note to John - I would not use the term "vanity registrant" for the kind of individual registrants that we currently also represent; often individuals use domain names for their professional activities, their home or small office businesses, their associations, hobby groups, non-profit campaigns or whatever. It's not just a matter of vanity, nor than it is for any other kind of business or non-profit.) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
May I refine what I hath scritto'd? Original scritto below. I don't think there is a need for anyone in this group to 'question what at-large is about'. Anyone who has been involved should know the face value of what it is. However, as designed, we all have our various foci (?focuses?) -whatever. And thus the reality of At-Large. Anyway moving along.... What I have thus stated was a point of view coming from where I stand. Here it is, in short... My focus is on the end-user (Internet user). However at the current state of flux in the universe, quite frankly the 'average' Internet user couldn't care less - from my own empirical research. Blame it on the complacency of society or too much tv, it don't matter. And, I for one, as an Internet user, wouldn't care either. Why should I if they were doing their job, right? I've got things to do. Oh, we can pretend they care and we can inform them, sure. OK. Let's go poll grandma about what she thinks about IPv6. No, there's other approaches that yield the same results - and most of y'all know this part much better than I do. So, yes outreach and jump up and down. We need to at some point. I am right now. I look at ICANN as a facilitator rather than a quasi-government, a viewpoint I've developed over the years to give me peace. So therfore, turning to registrants.... A constituency that has long been ignored. The ones who literally built the ground that we are walking on and who fund our reason for typing these useless messages and who sit and roam among us. Are they not Internet users? Are they not ICANNs end-user and reason of existence? As I recall, it is the Domain Name System and not the I have an email address System. It is the TCP/IP and not the GOP. Gimme an amen. In summary, we (I) can't forget about either of the above as end-constituencies because they both feed from one another, as which does ICANN. But let's not forget - wireless users, nonprofits, trademark holders, attorneys, telephone companies, cable companies, spammers, cybersquatters, investors, and everyone in between, because collectively WE are At-Large. I appreciate all your time in contributing to at-large. aloha, Randy Glass A@L ---------------
From previous email to list: -- All-in-all, I think it's the end-users that At-Large is all about. However, at the current time it is very difficult to expect that 'the individual user' could care less about ICANN or its policies. Since most policy decisions ultimately effect the registrant, it is sufficient to say that they are currently the end-user of ICANN.
When talking to people, most people in the industry are still unaware of ICANN, let alone the individual Internet user with an email address. This is where the 'educating' comes into play. I'm not sure if there ever will be a time when the 'Internet user with an email address' will ever have a concern about ICANN. However, the individual registrant is greatly effected by anything that ICANN does or says. Time will tell. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 7/26/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Brendler, Beau ha scritto:
Randy brings up an important point here -- I think ICANN and the At-Large community need to find ways to help consumers figure out why they should know what ICANN is, and what it does (and what it doesn't do, or can't do, for that matter). This is going to be critical to ALS outreach, especially if the community is seeking participation from consumer groups, as it did with us (we got involved via an invitation from Consumers International). Consumer groups have limited time and resources and are not going to pay much attention if the concerns of the At-Large boil down to the rights and concerns of registrants.
Until now the At Large has been more concerned with registrants, but this is IMHO because of two reasons: 1) the lack of a proper "registrant constituency" in the GNSO or elsewhere at ICANN, and 2) the lack of awareness and participation by other types of groups that are nearer to the "pure user" of the Internet. As both things are changing, I would expect the At Large to move more towards the end user side.
In any case, I think that our role is to consider all different viewpoints and be sure that we report all of them, and that whatever we propose is reasonable to all the subgroups that participate through us, including the non-technical, non-registrant user of the Internet.
(A note to John - I would not use the term "vanity registrant" for the kind of individual registrants that we currently also represent; often individuals use domain names for their professional activities, their home or small office businesses, their associations, hobby groups, non-profit campaigns or whatever. It's not just a matter of vanity, nor than it is for any other kind of business or non-profit.) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
John L wrote:
I have always found a major lack of agreement about who the at-large is supposed to be.
I guess I've been oblivious to this particular debate, as the answer was always pretty clear to me.
One group believes it is the domain registrants who are not part of other constituencies, which more or less means individuals (like me) who register personal vanity domains.
The other group believes that it's all the Internet users who are not parts of other consitutencies, all the people who have never registered a domain and never will, but use domains every day when they use the Internet.
The first group is a subset of the second group, and the At-Large I know includes both. It's my understanding that the whole reason for the ALSs is that we get to represent the interests of Internet users, most of whom use client software to receive and send information. Web and Email and occasionally real-time communications such as IM or VOIP, and that's about it. Most of my constituency is people who are very web savvy, but few of whom have their own domains (indeed, one of our member services is provision of a 'user@linux.ca' email forwarder). Consider many of the other constituencies here. How many would you say purely represent the interests of individual domain owners? How many members of Consumers Union do you suppose own their own domains?
In a lot of areas, the interests of these two groups are the same, e.g., we all would prefer that our registrars were competent and honest. But in a lot of other areas, they aren't, with WHOIS being the most obvious place.
I don't see this, as I see the interests of responsible providers of information in sync with those of their recipients. As a source of information it is reasonable that a domain owner should be tracable at some level, not just for trademark issues but also for libel and other reasons. I happen to be one of those throwbacks who believes that freedom of expression also entails taking responsibility for what one says. As I've mentioned before, there have been historical low-tech ways to achieve partial anonymity (ie, "name withheld by request" on letters to the editor, unlisted phone numbers) in a manner that provides a reasonable balance between the rights of speakers and listeners. Such methods exist in the Internet, such as WHOIS proxies.
Am I the only one who thinks that non-registrants count, or is ALAC a club for vanity registrants?
It's not either-or, you're right on both counts. Non-registrants certainly count, and make up the bulk of the constituencies that are most current ALSs. But it is inevitable that we will attract a disproportionate number of individual participants who, by their being domain owners, are more familiar with the workings of the net -- and with the role of ICANN -- than the general public. So we are, to a certain extent, a self-selected club for people who understand ICANN enough to be involved with it. What's critical is that the club is not exclusive, and that we do outreach to demonstrate the need for others to be involved. - Evan
John, I appreciate this message, and the last one with the points about WHOIS. In joining ICANN in April and becoming part of the ALAC in June, my intent and my organization's intent is to, with humility backed up by empirical data, speak for consumers -- many, probably most of whom have never registered a domain and never will, but use them every day, as you put it. I've been struck by the number of people in the discussion and working groups who seem to equate "consumers" or "end-users" with registrants. Part of our reason for being at Consumer Reports is to measure consumer attitudes and behaviors, then advocate for consumers appropriately (which includes testing products and giving advice about which ones to buy). It seems surprising to people in the ICANN community that consumers care less about the privacy rights of registrants than they care about solutions to fraud, being ripped off, etc. Making this statement, I was immediately confronted with the usual "what about the children" arguments, and astonishment that what I was saying placed consumers in the camp of intellectual property attorneys. (Note that I DIDN'T say, "consumers want law enforcement to have complete and unfettered access to WHOIS data without due process," or an absurdity of the like. Note also that I DIDN'T say consumers would not support technological solutions that might actually create a business opportunity for somebody). I hope within the ICANN community discussions about important issues such are not unnecessarily circumscribed and mischaracterized for the sake of rhetoric. Personally, I am hoping to find common ground among the groups, as you describe, and advocate accordingly. Beau Brendler Director, Consumer Reports WebWatch http://www.consumerwebwatch.org -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:38 AM To: RJGlass | America@Large Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: [At-Large] Who is At-Large, anyway? I have always found a major lack of agreement about who the at-large is supposed to be. One group believes it is the domain registrants who are not part of other constituencies, which more or less means individuals (like me) who register personal vanity domains. The other group believes that it's all the Internet users who are not parts of other consitutencies, all the people who have never registered a domain and never will, but use domains every day when they use the Internet. In a lot of areas, the interests of these two groups are the same, e.g., we all would prefer that our registrars were competent and honest. But in a lot of other areas, they aren't, with WHOIS being the most obvious place. Am I the only one who thinks that non-registrants count, or is ALAC a club for vanity registrants? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ 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
I think it is a good idea to discuss the definition of At-Large in light of the upcoming review of ALAC. I look forward to this discussion, and hope that it can lead to the formulation of one or more definitions . Perhaps background research on this very topic could be something we could add to the list of items a student could work on.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Jul-07, at 10:38 AM, John L wrote:
I have always found a major lack of agreement about who the at- large is supposed to be.
One group believes it is the domain registrants who are not part of other constituencies, which more or less means individuals (like me) who register personal vanity domains.
The other group believes that it's all the Internet users who are not parts of other consitutencies, all the people who have never registered a domain and never will, but use domains every day when they use the Internet.
In a lot of areas, the interests of these two groups are the same, e.g., we all would prefer that our registrars were competent and honest. But in a lot of other areas, they aren't, with WHOIS being the most obvious place.
Am I the only one who thinks that non-registrants count, or is ALAC a club for vanity registrants?
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex- Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ 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
Robert Guerra wrote:
I think it is a good idea to discuss the definition of At-Large in light of the upcoming review of ALAC. I look forward to this discussion, and hope that it can lead to the formulation of one or more definitions .
Oh joy. Another invitation to get involved in yet one more debate first principles, which will no doubt land us very close to where the last debate left us. Rinse and repeat. Let me know when we've come to a consensus of who we are. I have work to do. Does anyone here actually want to ACCOMPLISH something? - Evan
On 26-Jul-07, at 7:38 AM, John L wrote:
The other group believes that it's all the Internet users who are not parts of other constituencies, all the people who have never registered a domain and never will, but use domains every day when they use the Internet.
On 26-Jul-07, at 8:19 AM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
I'm not sure if there ever will be a time when the 'Internet user with an email address' will ever have a concern about ICANN. However, the individual registrant is greatly effected by anything that ICANN does or says.
It never occurred to me that there was any other definition than individual Internet users (ordinary people getting on with daily life online), regardless of their "registration" status. ICANN is a manifestation of an essential institution in a knowledge society. Internet users should not be defined by their relationship to ICANN but rather by the open nature of the society they inhabit. In the long term, those users (or, to put it another way, everybody) will become more conscious of ICANN-like mechanisms because: 1). If we [win?] (we could lose!), the citizens of a knowledge society will become more generally aware that Internet Governance means governance of online relationships by the Internet (and, in particular, Internet Protocol) more than it means governance of the Internet. 2). Achieving that growing awareness will depend, in large part, on resolution of the fundamental issue of autonomy in the ownership of the online expression of the self. We need to advocate for an evolution of IP that encodes "user-centric digital identity" (although that's such an awful expression). Although they are entwined, the right and ability to define who I am is a much broader question that the "registration" that defines where I live. Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada
There is more to ALAC than just domain name registrants or domain name users. We all use IP addresses. The fact that IPv4 space has been in limited availability over those last years has left us, individual users, with an ever changing public IP address. The main consequence of this is that we still have a rather centralized Internet, because we cannot do away with servers for just about anything we want to do. If any Internet user could have a reasonably fixed IPv6 address or address range, this would allow a radical change in the way the Internet users interact. Just think that your local e-mail server could just accept connections from about 200 trusted IP addresses of known friends or relatives. This would certainly help eliminate spam. I am not sure though that there is much to discuss about IP address allocation policies within the framework of ICANN, because each RIR has its own policy. RALOs would also need to talk to their RIR. Patrick Vande Walle John L wrote:
I have always found a major lack of agreement about who the at-large is supposed to be.
One group believes it is the domain registrants who are not part of other constituencies, which more or less means individuals (like me) who register personal vanity domains.
The other group believes that it's all the Internet users who are not parts of other consitutencies, all the people who have never registered a domain and never will, but use domains every day when they use the Internet.
In a lot of areas, the interests of these two groups are the same, e.g., we all would prefer that our registrars were competent and honest. But in a lot of other areas, they aren't, with WHOIS being the most obvious place.
Am I the only one who thinks that non-registrants count, or is ALAC a club for vanity registrants?
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
-- Patrick Vande Walle Chairman Internet Society Luxembourg Web site: http://www.isoc.lu Blog: http://patrick-vande-walle.eu Jabber me at patrick@isoc.lu
If any Internet user could have a reasonably fixed IPv6 address or address range, this would allow a radical change in the way the Internet users interact. Just think that your local e-mail server could just accept connections from about 200 trusted IP addresses of known friends or relatives.
Hypothetically speaking, you're right, but the RIRs don't make their IP allocation policies because they hate individual users, they make them so that the IP space they allocate is actually usable. Every separately managed chunk of IP space needs a separate entry in the routers at backbone networks. The route table is currently about 100,000 entries, and by heroic effort router manufacturers have been able to handle a table that size. There's no way they'd ever be able to handle a million entry table, much less the billion entry table if every user had his own private chunk of IP space. I happen to have my own chunk of 256 IPv4 addresses, which I got back in 1995. It's great, I can do all sorts of cool stuff with servers and VoIP phones. One thing I cannot do is to switch ISPs and take my IP addresses with me, because nobody would route them separately. Again, this isn't Sprint (my ISP's upstream provider) being mean to me, this is reality saying that the backbones won't give me one of those precious 100,000 routes. Indeed, even my ISP isn't big enough to merit its own route, and I've had to renumber once when my ISP switched wholesale providers and they had to renumber their whole network. Assuming that IPv6 becomes common, ISPs could and should allocate a chunk of IPv6 space to each customer, but users still won't be able to take the chunks with them if they change ISPs. At least here in the US, people change ISPs fairly frequently, which means that the list of trusted IP addresses would always be out of date.
This would certainly help eliminate spam.
Not really. If you want to whitelist mail from your friends and reject everything else, there are plenty of ways to do it now with existing software. One of the key things that makes e-mail so useful is that it is (still) possible to use e-mail for first contact, and to send mail to someone you've never written to before. So anyway, it's true that IP addresses are within the ALAC's remit, but I don't see that there's much of interest for us to say about them. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Thanks John for quite interesting post. The only comment I would make is, to the last part, I agree that IP address allocation policy does not directly affect each individual users per se. However, I think it still remains within "public interest" where collective interest of users matters so that ALAC should have say. ie, we do not want to see uneven distribution policies of remaining IPv4 among ISPs, or NIRs or even among RIRs that may cause grey or black market. best, izumi 2007/7/28, John L <johnl@iecc.com>:
If any Internet user could have a reasonably fixed IPv6 address or address range, this would allow a radical change in the way the Internet users interact. Just think that your local e-mail server could just accept connections from about 200 trusted IP addresses of known friends or relatives.
Hypothetically speaking, you're right, but the RIRs don't make their IP allocation policies because they hate individual users, they make them so that the IP space they allocate is actually usable.
Every separately managed chunk of IP space needs a separate entry in the routers at backbone networks. The route table is currently about 100,000 entries, and by heroic effort router manufacturers have been able to handle a table that size. There's no way they'd ever be able to handle a million entry table, much less the billion entry table if every user had his own private chunk of IP space.
I happen to have my own chunk of 256 IPv4 addresses, which I got back in 1995. It's great, I can do all sorts of cool stuff with servers and VoIP phones. One thing I cannot do is to switch ISPs and take my IP addresses with me, because nobody would route them separately. Again, this isn't Sprint (my ISP's upstream provider) being mean to me, this is reality saying that the backbones won't give me one of those precious 100,000 routes. Indeed, even my ISP isn't big enough to merit its own route, and I've had to renumber once when my ISP switched wholesale providers and they had to renumber their whole network.
Assuming that IPv6 becomes common, ISPs could and should allocate a chunk of IPv6 space to each customer, but users still won't be able to take the chunks with them if they change ISPs. At least here in the US, people change ISPs fairly frequently, which means that the list of trusted IP addresses would always be out of date.
This would certainly help eliminate spam.
Not really. If you want to whitelist mail from your friends and reject everything else, there are plenty of ways to do it now with existing software. One of the key things that makes e-mail so useful is that it is (still) possible to use e-mail for first contact, and to send mail to someone you've never written to before.
So anyway, it's true that IP addresses are within the ALAC's remit, but I don't see that there's much of interest for us to say about them.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
Izumi AIZU wrote:
However, I think it still remains within "public interest" where collective interest of users matters so that ALAC should have say. ie, we do not want to see uneven distribution policies of remaining IPv4 among ISPs, or NIRs or even among RIRs that may cause grey or black market.
You are right , Izumi. This actually also applies to IPv6 space. Given the RIRs have different policies for allocating IP ranges, we may actually see companies starting shopping around the world to find the most favourable policy to get what they want. Best, -- Patrick Vande Walle Chairman Internet Society Luxembourg
John L wrote:
the RIRs don't make their IP allocation policies because they hate individual users, they make them so that the IP space they allocate is actually usable.
Every separately managed chunk of IP space needs a separate entry in the routers at backbone networks. The route table is currently about 100,000 entries, and by heroic effort router manufacturers have been able to handle a table that size.
John, I was not suggesting to assign PI space to each and every individual. I just wanted to point out that DHCP and NAT in the consumer market has influenced the development of new Internet services. It still remains a centralized model. IPv6 could help make ever changing DHCP addresses and NAT a thing of the past. In a few years from now, one could imagine a low cost DSL router device that would also act as a Jabber, VoIP and web server, freeing us from using centralized, paying or ad-driven services. As for the router manufacturers, I would not describe their efforts as "heroic". CPU power and RAM size increase every year, according to Moore's law. User needs drive the developement of new technologies. This is also good news for router manufacturers. They are in the business of selling more iron, after all.
Assuming that IPv6 becomes common, ISPs could and should allocate a chunk of IPv6 space to each customer, but users still won't be able to take the chunks with them if they change ISPs. That was my point.
Best, -- Patrick Vande Walle Chairman Internet Society Luxembourg
Bret Fausett wrote:
Just because a person isn't afraid of being stalked because their own home address isn't in the whois database doesn't mean they would support the ability of stalkers to easily find their friends and neighbors. Most people aren't that self-centric ...and I think a healthy concern for others is a hallmark attribute of CU's members. Most non-techie Internet users (that I'm aware of in my own travels) don't think of domain owners as individuals; when I tell them I own my own domain they consider that a novelty. A check of most registries would probably affirm that individual casual ownership of domains is in the small minority -- especially compared to the massive bulk-domain-procurement activities that were suggested during the workshop on domain tasting. At their most benign, domain owners are providers of useful information and services, at their most severe the source of spam, phishing, squatting, and popup-window hell.
As such, I would suggest that most people -- especially those not in the tech field -- consider Internet domains far more likely the source of stalker than victim. I sincerely doubt that many casual Internet users consider domain owners to be their 'friends and neighbours" -- and, as such, are less concerned with their privacy than of end-users. Individual Internet users know they already have very limited privacy -- even when using pseudomyns in email, they can be traced back through their ISP. Why would one expect that they should naturally support greater anonymity for spammers than for themselves? - Evan
Basically we (WebWatch) agree with: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/07/whoisdb.shtm I agree with Evan here, who is particularly eloquent. The consumer constituency we represent cares about getting ripped off, spammed, phished. I'm not saying they don't care about the "privacy rights" of the domain registrant community. But from what I do know about our constituency, most consider the domain registrant community (if they even are aware of such terms or structure) as the authoritative class, or big business, or somehow responsible for all that junk that fills up their mailboxes -- not their friends and neighbors. -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:31 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: Brendler, Beau; At-Large writ small; Vittorio Bertola Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG Bret Fausett wrote:
Just because a person isn't afraid of being stalked because their own home address isn't in the whois database doesn't mean they would support the ability of stalkers to easily find their friends and neighbors. Most people aren't that self-centric ...and I think a healthy concern for others is a hallmark attribute of CU's members. Most non-techie Internet users (that I'm aware of in my own travels) don't think of domain owners as individuals; when I tell them I own my own domain they consider that a novelty. A check of most registries would probably affirm that individual casual ownership of domains is in the small minority -- especially compared to the massive bulk-domain-procurement activities that were suggested during the workshop on domain tasting. At their most benign, domain owners are providers of useful information and services, at their most severe the source of spam, phishing, squatting, and popup-window hell.
As such, I would suggest that most people -- especially those not in the tech field -- consider Internet domains far more likely the source of stalker than victim. I sincerely doubt that many casual Internet users consider domain owners to be their 'friends and neighbours" -- and, as such, are less concerned with their privacy than of end-users. Individual Internet users know they already have very limited privacy -- even when using pseudomyns in email, they can be traced back through their ISP. Why would one expect that they should naturally support greater anonymity for spammers than for themselves? - Evan *** Scanned
I understand the consumer's interest in avoiding spam and fraud, I just don't see publication of personal information in WHOIS as the way to advance that interest. The reputable business will always have the options to display information in WHOIS and in other venues (Better Business Bureau seals, Consumer Reports reviews, the stopbadware.org database), and consumers should be informed about how to look for those. The fraudster will avoid publishing real data in WHOIS, no matter what the compulsion -- he may either use a real Citibank address when registering c1t1bank.com or register at 1 Mickey Mouse Lane. The WHOIS often won't help stop these, but non-DNS law enforcement can. The individual domain name registrant, meanwhile, is least likely to know about other options than publishing a home address and contact information when registering a domain name for a personal website or weblog. For that person, using the Net to communicate, I'd like to see better privacy options. A lot of the fraud problem, as I see it, is really outside ICANN -- can we educate Internet users better, technically and information-wise, about verifying the trustworthiness of sites they use? --Wendy Brendler, Beau wrote:
Basically we (WebWatch) agree with: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/07/whoisdb.shtm
I agree with Evan here, who is particularly eloquent. The consumer constituency we represent cares about getting ripped off, spammed, phished. I'm not saying they don't care about the "privacy rights" of the domain registrant community. But from what I do know about our constituency, most consider the domain registrant community (if they even are aware of such terms or structure) as the authoritative class, or big business, or somehow responsible for all that junk that fills up their mailboxes -- not their friends and neighbors.
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:31 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: Brendler, Beau; At-Large writ small; Vittorio Bertola Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG
Bret Fausett wrote:
Just because a person isn't afraid of being stalked because their own home address isn't in the whois database doesn't mean they would support the ability of stalkers to easily find their friends and neighbors. Most people aren't that self-centric ...and I think a healthy concern for others is a hallmark attribute of CU's members. Most non-techie Internet users (that I'm aware of in my own travels) don't think of domain owners as individuals; when I tell them I own my own domain they consider that a novelty. A check of most registries would probably affirm that individual casual ownership of domains is in the small minority -- especially compared to the massive bulk-domain-procurement activities that were suggested during the workshop on domain tasting. At their most benign, domain owners are providers of useful information and services, at their most severe the source of spam, phishing, squatting, and popup-window hell.
As such, I would suggest that most people -- especially those not in the tech field -- consider Internet domains far more likely the source of stalker than victim. I sincerely doubt that many casual Internet users consider domain owners to be their 'friends and neighbours" -- and, as such, are less concerned with their privacy than of end-users.
Individual Internet users know they already have very limited privacy -- even when using pseudomyns in email, they can be traced back through their ISP. Why would one expect that they should naturally support greater anonymity for spammers than for themselves?
- Evan
*** 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Consumer education is always the issue (for us), and I agree with the statement: "A lot of the fraud problem, as I see it, is really outside ICANN -- can we educate Internet users better, technically and information-wise, about verifying the trustworthiness of sites they use?" I want to avoid wasting anyone's time with discussion of matters outside ICANN's scope (though if/when you get more ALSs, there will be more...) But to respond: We do have empirical data that shows consumers don't really regard seals as a measure of a site's credibility: http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-princeto n.cfm http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-a-matter -of-trust-abstract.cfm That's not to say they are not useful. Businesses like them, we do tell consumers to look for them, but they have proliferated and are easily faked (see "The World's Best Sites," http://weblog.consumerwebwatch.org/theunsponsoredlink/2007/05/the_worlds _best_sites_who_says.html, which put its seal on a site that fooled some "experts" I know, AskDrTech.com). Some "seal" organizations are well-intentioned, like UK's Web Trader was, but find themselves, after a while, without funding or the will to maintain their integrity. As for the BBB system, it's better to have it than not, but I can point to problems with it. Then there's the matter of fraudulent background check sites like CourtRecords.org (http://weblog.consumerwebwatch.org/theunsponsoredlink/2006/09/backgroun d_check_sites_backgro.html), which takes advantage of consumer trust in the .org domain. I'm speaking from my own experience and Consumer Reports' experience using WHOIS as an investigative tool to help resolve consumer complaints. Using WHOIS led us to the mail-drop physical address of AskDrTech.com. WHOIS helped us determine CourtRecords.org was a scam run out of Stockholm, so you could argue that they didn't publish "real" WHOIS data, but it was enough to determine and advise consumers that if they had problems with that site, they could stand a long wait for a refund, and that other consumers should steer clear. We teach consumers to use WHOIS as a means to verify whether a Web site is trustworthy. Surely the argument is not black and white here, between evildoers vs. protecting my daughter's privacy so she can put up a personal Web site. As you say, "The individual domain name registrant, meanwhile, is least likely to know about other options than publishing a home address and contact information when registering a domain name for a personal website or weblog. For that person, using the Net to communicate, I'd like to see better privacy options." Yes, so would we, absolutely. Surely there are technological means? Or a change in classification of "ownership" to the escrow services? Or market forces that might lead consumers to take more precautions using sites with .NET, .BIZ and .TV domains, or that lead young people who want to put up personal Web sites to avoid stalkers to use another domain with different restrictions/precautions, etc.? -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:33 PM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: Evan Leibovitch; Bret Fausett; Vittorio Bertola; At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG I understand the consumer's interest in avoiding spam and fraud, I just don't see publication of personal information in WHOIS as the way to advance that interest. The reputable business will always have the options to display information in WHOIS and in other venues (Better Business Bureau seals, Consumer Reports reviews, the stopbadware.org database), and consumers should be informed about how to look for those. The fraudster will avoid publishing real data in WHOIS, no matter what the compulsion -- he may either use a real Citibank address when registering c1t1bank.com or register at 1 Mickey Mouse Lane. The WHOIS often won't help stop these, but non-DNS law enforcement can. The individual domain name registrant, meanwhile, is least likely to know about other options than publishing a home address and contact information when registering a domain name for a personal website or weblog. For that person, using the Net to communicate, I'd like to see better privacy options. A lot of the fraud problem, as I see it, is really outside ICANN -- can we educate Internet users better, technically and information-wise, about verifying the trustworthiness of sites they use? --Wendy Brendler, Beau wrote:
Basically we (WebWatch) agree with: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/07/whoisdb.shtm
I agree with Evan here, who is particularly eloquent. The consumer constituency we represent cares about getting ripped off, spammed, phished. I'm not saying they don't care about the "privacy rights" of the domain registrant community. But from what I do know about our constituency, most consider the domain registrant community (if they even are aware of such terms or structure) as the authoritative class,
or big business, or somehow responsible for all that junk that fills up their mailboxes -- not their friends and neighbors.
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:31 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: Brendler, Beau; At-Large writ small; Vittorio Bertola Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG
Bret Fausett wrote:
Just because a person isn't afraid of being stalked because their own home address isn't in the whois database doesn't mean they would support the ability of stalkers to easily find their friends and neighbors. Most people aren't that self-centric ...and I think a healthy concern for others is a hallmark attribute of CU's members. Most non-techie Internet users (that I'm aware of in my own travels) don't think of domain owners as individuals; when I tell them I own my
own domain they consider that a novelty. A check of most registries would probably affirm that individual casual ownership of domains is in the small minority -- especially compared to the massive bulk-domain-procurement activities that were suggested during the workshop on domain tasting. At their most benign, domain owners are providers of useful information and services, at their most severe the
source of spam, phishing, squatting, and popup-window hell.
As such, I would suggest that most people -- especially those not in the tech field -- consider Internet domains far more likely the source
of stalker than victim. I sincerely doubt that many casual Internet users consider domain owners to be their 'friends and neighbours" -- and, as such, are less concerned with their privacy than of end-users.
Individual Internet users know they already have very limited privacy -- even when using pseudomyns in email, they can be traced back through their ISP. Why would one expect that they should naturally support greater anonymity for spammers than for themselves?
- Evan
*** Scanned
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ *** Scanned
So how do we balance the interests of the small and individual registrants as well as that of the consumer, as both are our constituents? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Brendler, Beau [mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:08 PM To: Evan Leibovitch; Bret Fausett Cc: Vittorio Bertola; At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG Basically we (WebWatch) agree with: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/07/whoisdb.shtm I agree with Evan here, who is particularly eloquent. The consumer constituency we represent cares about getting ripped off, spammed, phished. I'm not saying they don't care about the "privacy rights" of the domain registrant community. But from what I do know about our constituency, most consider the domain registrant community (if they even are aware of such terms or structure) as the authoritative class, or big business, or somehow responsible for all that junk that fills up their mailboxes -- not their friends and neighbors. -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:31 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: Brendler, Beau; At-Large writ small; Vittorio Bertola Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG Bret Fausett wrote:
Just because a person isn't afraid of being stalked because their own home address isn't in the whois database doesn't mean they would support the ability of stalkers to easily find their friends and neighbors. Most people aren't that self-centric ...and I think a healthy concern for others is a hallmark attribute of CU's members. Most non-techie Internet users (that I'm aware of in my own travels) don't think of domain owners as individuals; when I tell them I own my own domain they consider that a novelty. A check of most registries would probably affirm that individual casual ownership of domains is in the small minority -- especially compared to the massive bulk-domain-procurement activities that were suggested during the workshop on domain tasting. At their most benign, domain owners are providers of useful information and services, at their most severe the source of spam, phishing, squatting, and popup-window hell.
As such, I would suggest that most people -- especially those not in the tech field -- consider Internet domains far more likely the source of stalker than victim. I sincerely doubt that many casual Internet users consider domain owners to be their 'friends and neighbours" -- and, as such, are less concerned with their privacy than of end-users. Individual Internet users know they already have very limited privacy -- even when using pseudomyns in email, they can be traced back through their ISP. Why would one expect that they should naturally support greater anonymity for spammers than for themselves? - Evan *** 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM
participants (17)
-
Annette Muehlberg -
Brendler, Beau -
Bret Fausett -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Graham -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John L -
José Ovidio Salgueiro A. -
Michael Maranda -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Patrick Vande Walle -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Robert Guerra -
Siavash Shahshahani -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer