On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Don Blumenthal wrote:
I¹m jumping in briefly to rename this
thread.
And request that assertions of fact (spam percentages and origin
of proxy
and privacy services to name a couple) be accompanied by
documentation so
we can get a head start on assembling materials. It will have to
happen
now or later.
Don
On 1/20/14, 12:47 PM, "Volker Greimann"
<vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
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
shouldn¹t wait a week:
³John 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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig.
Sollte diese
Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich
mit uns
per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate
to contact
us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the
person to whom
it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish
any content
of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely
on this
e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected
this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or
contacting
us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
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