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