I am interested in all BC members comments that are as 'users' , not applicants.
The BC membership is quite clear that it cannot address applicant views, and of course, applicants are actively engaged in the contracted party "house".
Having stated that, which we all agree, as all BC members agreed to this in their application to be a BC member, I fully support that discussion about
centralized repository services risks and threats, versus distributed services, in a new environment of thousands of gTLDS.
As to risks and threats: Databases much larger than WHOIS are held, and operated by corporations and they deal with threats and risks and attacks, daily, and hourly.
Still, it deserves discussion.
BUT, informed discussion.
WHOIS is a key priority for the BC. so next generation services must be as well.
Marilyn Cade
From:
aparnasridhar@google.com
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:08:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
To:
sdelbianco@netchoice.org
CC:
bc-gnso@icann.org
All,
We appreciate everyone’s hard work and thoughtful commentary as the BC has worked toward developing a
position on next generation directory services. We have thought about this issue further, and have a few targeted comments on the draft that we hope the BC will consider.
First, we generally agree with Bill’s comments regarding the potential dangers of a centralized repository.
A centralized repository is an incredibly tempting target for both governments and bad actors. As such, the concern with data loss or breach is not whether the data can be reassembled, as the comment currently suggests, but what is done with the data after
it has been improperly accessed. While it is true that a centralized database may adopt stronger security precautions than multiple individualized databases, the incentives to overcome those security precautions will also be more substantial. Therefore, we
are not persuaded that the BC should unconditionally endorse the centralized repository concept, and at the very least should recommend a thorough security review of the EWG’s recommendations before they are finalized.
Second, we respectfully urge greater precision and circumspection in the comment’s treatment of the distinction
between non-commercial and commercial sites. The concepts of commercial v. non-commercial sites were not discussed in detail in the EWG report, and we support the BC’s efforts to adopt this distinction and flesh it out in greater detail. However, we are concerned
that some of the current suggested language may be overbroad, and inadvertently disadvantage many non-commercial actors that merit protection for their exercise of free expression. In particular:
-
The current text provides: “The BC believes that any domain name
employed to derive economic benefit on behalf of a domain registrant
(individual or entity) should preclude registration via privacy and/or proxy services.” We are concerned that this purpose-driven test is overly vague and subjective. We welcome further discussion on feasibility of implementation, but perhaps a straight revenue-based
test may be preferable.
-
The discussion also notes that “domain names used in connection with the Internet that accept advertising
of any kind, sell goods or services and/or accept donations, or link to commercial sites
[should be characterized] as a commercial site.” We
respectfully disagree that the acceptance of donations and links to commercial sites should disqualify websites from accessing privacy or proxy services. For example, a political or current events website with no commercial intention may often link to commercial
media sites such as the New York Times for purposes of referencing the source of information. Similarly, an opinion or review blog for restaurants or gadgets or movies would likely link to further information about the subjects being reviewed, including the
subject commercial homepages. And the very acceptance of donations is likely an indicator that a particular site is a non-profit enterprise.
-
We also have concerns about some of the text related to protected political activity, namely, the reference
to protection from “unjustified
prosecution for political activity.” The term “unjustified” is a highly subjective concept which is dependent on who is making the decision. In addition, we respectfully believe that the reference to international treaties that promote freedom of expression
is problematic, as the most relevant international treaty, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, has a carve-out for
protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals that would be considered extremely overbroad in the United States. We encourage the BC to
therefore consider a more general reference to the free flow of information and data.
-
Finally, we would support a general statement along the lines of Marilyn’s suggested language, noting
that “the issue of who’s data should be released to whom and under what circumstances, as well who is eligible to take advantage of privacy/proxy services, “is highly complex, and . . . more work is needed on what the characteristics are for eligibility to
use a proxy /privacy registration service.”
Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to further dialogue on this topic.
Cheers,
Aparna and Andy