This was discussed at some length at the EWG, and that was the conclusion.  Part of the reason the EWG  was set up was indeed to set a fresh look, and avoid paving the cow path, as the saying goes. (apologies to non-english speakers).  Which brings me to the merits of multistakeholderism, and an earlier remark from someone (I forget whom and am not going to look it up) about personal agenda, and a purpose of stalling the process.  
While I am prepared to apologize daily for not understanding the intricacies of registration and business models of registrars of all types, I make no apology for intervening (and thus slowing any process) on matters where it appears I have expertise that could be lacking in the discussion.  This expertise would include managing multi-stakeholder negotiations on matters of public  policy in a domestic government setting, and in International government fora.   It would also include data protection law, which is no less important than criminal or competition or IP law in the eyes of those who count on human rights law to protect the individual, and in the fabric of the constitution of many jurisdictions.
I do hope that the remark about slowing down the process to achieve a personal agenda was not aimed at me; I am paid by noone and I am honestly trying to make sure ICANN does not do something really stupid here and thus collect more black marks on the multistakeholder model report card.     
respectfully,
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-01-20, at 1:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg