Actually, FWIW, I don't think Whois data was intended to be public. When it was created, as part of the NSFNET, it was information shared in a trusted network among members of the trusted (and closed) network. Further, it was never personal or home information. Domain names were registered largely by universities, e.g., Harvard.edu, and the Whois data was Scott Bradner's (Harvard IT) and other university IT office locations (and some government and military agencies) - in a closed network). The DNS then expanded broadly in the 1990s, NSF forwarded to the US Department of Commerce and then it was sent on to the new ICANN (someone has written about this transition and lack of evaluation of Whois as an academic piece; Milton I think). I've spoken with Scott Bradner about this... Best, Kathy
As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy. Information that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should not. "The public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme...
BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data, logging private communication, etc.
Volker
Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Volker,
Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois and still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who the bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns a domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to be public in the first place.
It appears that you have decided that the general public does not deserve access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to something so extreme.
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy services, provided they are required to reveal such identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the other hand have no real legitimate interest to receive data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best left to LEAs into their own hands.
There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and not to have their full names and likenesses published. Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
Volker
Hi Tim,
The harm is protecting the identities of criminnals. And I consider undermining whois a harm, as well
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
What are the problems commercial entities that use p/p have caused?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker,
I was merely responding to Stephanie's comments about the difficulties, not advocating a position.
However, as you are aware, I do advocate barring commercial entities from using p/p, because the use has already caused harm and we should fix that. The providers created the problem in the first place, so allowing them to continue to control it simply continues the problem.
The discussion of all this is the point of this group (and other groups).
--bob
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
I agree that it would be possible to bar commercial entities from using p/p services, however I am not sure it is the sensible thing to do. Certainly, there is abuse, but by creating a blanket prohibition, i fear more damage will be done to legitimate interests than good is done to illegitimate ones. In the end it should be up to the provider which categories of clients it accepts. Volker Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob Bruen:
Hi Stephanie,
It is entirely possible to decide to bar commercial entities, create a definition of "comercial entities" and then deal with those which appear to problematical.
The fraudsters probably will not be a set up as a legitimate bussiness, but their sites can be identified as spam, malware, etc types and thus taking money, therefore a business. I am sure there are other methods to deal with problem domain names.
In general, exceptions or problems should not derail a process.
--bob
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I dont want to keep beating a dead horse here....but if there is a resounding response of "yes indeed, bar commercial entities from using P/P services", then how are you going to propose that p/p proxy service providers determine who is a commercial entity, particularly in jurisdictions which have declined to regulate the provision of goods and services over the Internet? I don't like asking questions that walk us into corners we cannot get out of. Do the fraudsters we are worried about actually apply for business numbers and articles of incorporation in the jurisdictions in which they operate? I operate in a jurisdiction where this distinction is often extremely difficult to make. THe determination would depend on the precise use being made of the domain name....which gets ICANN squarely into content analysis, and which can hardly be done for new registrations, even if t were within ICANN's remit. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but I just have not heard a good answer to this problem. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-01-19, at 4:38 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Jin and all I agree with Jim here (and Don earlier). The important task here is agreeing on the questions to be asked of the SO/ACs. So we need to get back to framing the questions - not answering them, however tempting that may be.
So the question of whether 'commercial entities' should be barred is still a useful question to ask. The next question would be whether there are possible distinctions that should be drawn between an entity that can use the service and one that can't and, if so, where is the line drawn. I agree with the discussion on how difficult that will be because many entities that have corporate status also have reasonable grounds for wanting the protection of such a service (human rights organisations or women's refuges come to mind). But that is the sort of response we are seeking from others outside of this group - so let's not prejudge answers. Let's only frame the questions that will help us come to some sensible answers. Otherwise, we'll never get to the next steps.
And my apologies for the next meeting. I have a long day ahead on Wednesday (Sydney time) and taking calls at 2.00am won't help. So Ill read the transcript and be back in a fortnight (2 weeks for those who do not use the term)
Holly
On 16/01/2014, at 5:39 AM, Jim Bikoff wrote:
Don and all,
As we suggested earlier, and discussed in the last Group teleconference, it might be helpful, as a next step, if we reached a consensus on the groups of questions before sending them out to SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
This would involve two steps: First, agreeing on the name of each group; and second, streamlining the questions in each group.
In the first step, we could consider alternative headings (perhaps REGISTRATION instead of MAINTENANCE).
And in the second step, we could remove duplicative or vague questions.
This crystallization would make the questions more approachable, and encourage better responses.
I hope these ideas are helpful.
Best,
Jim
James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com
From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: January 14, 2014 11:09:23 AM EST To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question Carlton posted an issue that shouldn't wait a week:
"John came up with 4 groups. Do we have a notion that others might be extracted? And where do we include/modify questions to address Stephanie's issue?"
Jim had four groups and an umbrella Main category, which may be instructive in itself in guiding how we proceed organizationally. Regardless, the consensus of commenters has been that his document is a significant improvement over where we were before, and I suggest that we use it as a baseline. However, we still have work to do on it. Feel free to suggest modifications.
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg