Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible requirements from GAC / law enforcement recommended documents
Actually, I don't think asking Volker for a clarification on what he meant moves us into deliberations, unless we start discussing the merits of the issues. I was pointing out that parts of the documents that Victoria submitted to us were not in our scope. And you are correct Chuck. Much of what we will ultimately recommend here will end up in the RAA and Ry agreements. I was referring to things such requiring a registrar to give its contact information, incorporation documents and the name of its CEO. Alan At 13/07/2016 09:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for reminding everyone of this Victoria. It's nice not to have to do that myself.
With regard to in scope or not, I want to make sure that everyone understands that the fact that something is in the RAA does not make it out of scope and I am quite sure that that is not what Alan was suggesting.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Victoria Sheckler Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:40 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible requirements from GAC / law enforcement recommended documents
I believe you are moving onto deliberation territory again and I don't think we're there yet.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 13, 2016, at 5:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Volker, parts of the Law Enforcement document seem to apply to the RAA in general and are out of scope for this PDP. That notwithstanding, it would be useful (or at least interesting) to know which data elements you are referring to (I suspect I know a couple, but that would be pure hypothesis on my part).
Alan
At 13/07/2016 05:16 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
One might add that a lot of the demands by law enforcement show that they have no idea about how registrars work and demands information that registrars may not even have legal or actual access to.
Volker
Am 13.07.2016 um 04:54 schrieb Rob Golding:
Before I open these, could you say something about what might be in them, so that I can at least be reasonably certain you're not a bot infecting me?
The GAC doc essentially says that WHOIS does the job they want it to, but they would like more validation and verification
The LEA doc is one of their "wants lists" relating to the 2013 RAA - much of it it unnecessary and even unreasonable IMHO. Some of it went into the RAA despite strong objections. Some of it was rejected during RAA negotiations, but it appeared ICANN staff took it upon themselves to add it to the RAA "between drafts" anyway.
TL:DR;
"Law Enforcement" want Registrars to be unpaid, unwilling, contractually-obliged mass data collectors, becoming forced participants in the continued extension of (probably illegal) global surveillance
Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Hi Alan, I actually just wanted to indicate the status of these proposals after they were first introduced in the RAA negotiations, not go into detail. Let's leave the detail for later, but I felt it important to mention that the reality in which these proposals were drafted was not the reality we live and operate in. Best, Volker Am 13.07.2016 um 17:27 schrieb Alan Greenberg:
Actually, I don't think asking Volker for a clarification on what he meant moves us into deliberations, unless we start discussing the merits of the issues.
I was pointing out that parts of the documents that Victoria submitted to us were not in our scope. And you are correct Chuck. Much of what we will ultimately recommend here will end up in the RAA and Ry agreements. I was referring to things such requiring a registrar to give its contact information, incorporation documents and the name of its CEO.
Alan
At 13/07/2016 09:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for reminding everyone of this Victoria. It's nice not to have to do that myself.
With regard to in scope or not, I want to make sure that everyone understands that the fact that something is in the RAA does not make it out of scope and I am quite sure that that is not what Alan was suggesting.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Victoria Sheckler Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:40 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible requirements from GAC / law enforcement recommended documents
I believe you are moving onto deliberation territory again and I don't think we're there yet.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 13, 2016, at 5:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Volker, parts of the Law Enforcement document seem to apply to the RAA in general and are out of scope for this PDP. That notwithstanding, it would be useful (or at least interesting) to know which data elements you are referring to (I suspect I know a couple, but that would be pure hypothesis on my part).
Alan
At 13/07/2016 05:16 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
One might add that a lot of the demands by law enforcement show that they have no idea about how registrars work and demands information that registrars may not even have legal or actual access to.
Volker
Am 13.07.2016 um 04:54 schrieb Rob Golding:
Before I open these, could you say something about what might be in them, so that I can at least be reasonably certain you're not a bot infecting me?
The GAC doc essentially says that WHOIS does the job they want it to, but they would like more validation and verification
The LEA doc is one of their "wants lists" relating to the 2013 RAA - much of it it unnecessary and even unreasonable IMHO. Some of it went into the RAA despite strong objections. Some of it was rejected during RAA negotiations, but it appeared ICANN staff took it upon themselves to add it to the RAA "between drafts" anyway.
TL:DR;
"Law Enforcement" want Registrars to be unpaid, unwilling, contractually-obliged mass data collectors, becoming forced participants in the continued extension of (probably illegal) global surveillance
Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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.
I agree. So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching and suggestions, pants made are baseless and have no argument. WOW Rightly said, In reality businesses dont want to Pay taxes, everyone wants to make a Quick money and run away from Corporate Social Responsibilities and Social Accountability does not figure out in their list of priorities. YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ? On 7/14/16, 1:18 PM, "Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Hi Alan,
I actually just wanted to indicate the status of these proposals after they were first introduced in the RAA negotiations, not go into detail. Let's leave the detail for later, but I felt it important to mention that the reality in which these proposals were drafted was not the reality we live and operate in.
Best,
Volker
Am 13.07.2016 um 17:27 schrieb Alan Greenberg:
Actually, I don't think asking Volker for a clarification on what he meant moves us into deliberations, unless we start discussing the merits of the issues.
I was pointing out that parts of the documents that Victoria submitted to us were not in our scope. And you are correct Chuck. Much of what we will ultimately recommend here will end up in the RAA and Ry agreements. I was referring to things such requiring a registrar to give its contact information, incorporation documents and the name of its CEO.
Alan
At 13/07/2016 09:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for reminding everyone of this Victoria. It's nice not to have to do that myself.
With regard to in scope or not, I want to make sure that everyone understands that the fact that something is in the RAA does not make it out of scope and I am quite sure that that is not what Alan was suggesting.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Victoria Sheckler Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:40 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible requirements from GAC / law enforcement recommended documents
I believe you are moving onto deliberation territory again and I don't think we're there yet.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 13, 2016, at 5:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Volker, parts of the Law Enforcement document seem to apply to the RAA in general and are out of scope for this PDP. That notwithstanding, it would be useful (or at least interesting) to know which data elements you are referring to (I suspect I know a couple, but that would be pure hypothesis on my part).
Alan
At 13/07/2016 05:16 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
One might add that a lot of the demands by law enforcement show that they have no idea about how registrars work and demands information that registrars may not even have legal or actual access to.
Volker
Am 13.07.2016 um 04:54 schrieb Rob Golding:
> Before I open these, could you say something about what might be in > them, so that I can at least be reasonably certain you're not a bot > infecting me?
The GAC doc essentially says that WHOIS does the job they want it to, but they would like more validation and verification
The LEA doc is one of their "wants lists" relating to the 2013 RAA - much of it it unnecessary and even unreasonable IMHO. Some of it went into the RAA despite strong objections. Some of it was rejected during RAA negotiations, but it appeared ICANN staff took it upon themselves to add it to the RAA "between drafts" anyway.
TL:DR;
"Law Enforcement" want Registrars to be unpaid, unwilling, contractually-obliged mass data collectors, becoming forced participants in the continued extension of (probably illegal) global surveillance
Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Good that we agree. As for the rest, I am not sure what you are trying to say, so I will not comment. Am 14.07.2016 um 09:58 schrieb Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal:
I agree. So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching and suggestions, pants made are baseless and have no argument. WOW Rightly said, In reality businesses dont want to Pay taxes, everyone wants to make a Quick money and run away from Corporate Social Responsibilities and Social Accountability does not figure out in their list of priorities. YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ?
-- 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.
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching and suggestions, pants made are baseless and have no argument.
You appear to turn many ideas / comments you don't understand into some sort of personal attack. Perhaps if you had * read the document * understood the document * attended any of the multiple Registrar&LEA meetings where some of their wants (most of which they never expected to get and many of which they couldn't provide any reason for asking for) you wouldn't be jumping so quickly to these weird conclusions.
YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ?
One (of many) examples .. LEAs wanted the personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website. Not simply provided (as is law in most locales) to the company regulating authority in that region - most of whom DO NOT make that information public without a warrant for very valid reasons Not even just submitted to ICANN (as indeed much information about the management of a registrar already is) for them to know / leak But published for anyone and everyone on the registration website If someone LEA or otherwise wants to to talk to my Registrar, they can do so at the office (by appointment) or by phone or by email or through the ticket system or any number of other *appropriate* and *documented* methods - they DO NOT need to know about and turn up at my HOME address Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR * domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups *
Its a comment so take it as it is please. - Please do some of us a favor : I wanna know : * demonstrate your learned self and share your interpretation of the document so that I can get corrected. I am happy to learn as it is a continuous process; * Also, plz. share the more details on "multiple Registrar & LEA meetings where some of their wants (most of which they never expected to get and many of which they couldn't provide any reason for asking for)" * OR share a document clearly stating the Registrar / Registry / LEA expectations / wants /dezires and or wants; My comment w.r.t. Tax-Savings will definitely not go down well with a lot of people here but since we are a matured group I expect all to take it NOT with a pinch of salt and work constructively to achieve a good whois structure. AND MY comment on tax is coming from a few members saying the ³The GAC does not want us to earn² and Privacy being paramount-More than Security from Terror - Cyber Terror. And Some then seconded it. Also, I am a law abiding citizen, if you as a register or a registry is ready to take responsibility for data security, I am happy to share my photo id to do business with you. Not a worry. If I want to be shady, I will find ways and means, or (If you know about Law in the US) - I would plead the 5th :-) Do I need say more or I rest my case. Gentlemen - Its a discussion, its not abut defending our territories. On 7/14/16, 2:05 PM, "Rob Golding" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rob.golding@astutium.com> wrote:
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching and suggestions, pants made are baseless and have no argument.
You appear to turn many ideas / comments you don't understand into some sort of personal attack.
Perhaps if you had * read the document * understood the document * attended any of the multiple Registrar&LEA meetings where some of their wants (most of which they never expected to get and many of which they couldn't provide any reason for asking for) you wouldn't be jumping so quickly to these weird conclusions.
YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ?
One (of many) examples ..
LEAs wanted the personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website.
Not simply provided (as is law in most locales) to the company regulating authority in that region - most of whom DO NOT make that information public without a warrant for very valid reasons
Not even just submitted to ICANN (as indeed much information about the management of a registrar already is) for them to know / leak
But published for anyone and everyone on the registration website
If someone LEA or otherwise wants to to talk to my Registrar, they can do so at the office (by appointment) or by phone or by email or through the ticket system or any number of other *appropriate* and *documented* methods - they DO NOT need to know about and turn up at my HOME address
Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR
* domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups * _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Law enforcement never requested "personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website." Law enforcement requested only that the names of the executives be posted on the registrar's website, and that contact information for the registrar; i.e., company address and telephone number, not the home address of senior staff. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com> wrote:
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching and suggestions, pants made are baseless and have no argument.
You appear to turn many ideas / comments you don't understand into some sort of personal attack.
Perhaps if you had * read the document * understood the document * attended any of the multiple Registrar&LEA meetings where some of their wants (most of which they never expected to get and many of which they couldn't provide any reason for asking for) you wouldn't be jumping so quickly to these weird conclusions.
YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related
factors. How can it be ?
One (of many) examples ..
LEAs wanted the personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website.
Not simply provided (as is law in most locales) to the company regulating authority in that region - most of whom DO NOT make that information public without a warrant for very valid reasons
Not even just submitted to ICANN (as indeed much information about the management of a registrar already is) for them to know / leak
But published for anyone and everyone on the registration website
If someone LEA or otherwise wants to to talk to my Registrar, they can do so at the office (by appointment) or by phone or by email or through the ticket system or any number of other *appropriate* and *documented* methods - they DO NOT need to know about and turn up at my HOME address
Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR
* domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups *
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- *Terri Stumme* *Investigative Analyst*
Correct Terri. Ridiculous attempt to smear and discredit. Contactable information does not require home details, and no one has ever claimed otherwise. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Terri Stumme <terri.stumme@legitscript.com<mailto:terri.stumme@legitscript.com>> wrote: Law enforcement never requested "personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website." Law enforcement requested only that the names of the executives be posted on the registrar's website, and that contact information for the registrar; i.e., company address and telephone number, not the home address of senior staff. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com<mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com>> wrote: On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote: So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching and suggestions, pants made are baseless and have no argument. You appear to turn many ideas / comments you don't understand into some sort of personal attack. Perhaps if you had * read the document * understood the document * attended any of the multiple Registrar&LEA meetings where some of their wants (most of which they never expected to get and many of which they couldn't provide any reason for asking for) you wouldn't be jumping so quickly to these weird conclusions. YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ? One (of many) examples .. LEAs wanted the personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website. Not simply provided (as is law in most locales) to the company regulating authority in that region - most of whom DO NOT make that information public without a warrant for very valid reasons Not even just submitted to ICANN (as indeed much information about the management of a registrar already is) for them to know / leak But published for anyone and everyone on the registration website If someone LEA or otherwise wants to to talk to my Registrar, they can do so at the office (by appointment) or by phone or by email or through the ticket system or any number of other *appropriate* and *documented* methods - they DO NOT need to know about and turn up at my HOME address Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com<mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com> Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR * domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups * _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Terri Stumme Investigative Analyst <RAA Negotiations_Transcript- Update on the RAA Negotiations (EN) (1).pdf> <LEA Recommendations (1).pdf> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Ad hominem again? Nice! <personal comment redacted> Not every error in a comment on a document that was first circulated over 6 years ago needs to be intentional and/or malicious. <personal comment redacted> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi/LawEnforcementRAArecommendations%... asked for /3) All Accredited Registrars must submit to ICANN accurate and verifiable contact details of their main operational and physical office location, including country, phone number (with international prefix), street address, city, and region, to be publicly disclosed in ICANN web directory. Address must also be posted clearly on the Registrar's main website. Post Office boxes, incorporation addresses, mail-drop, and mail-forwarding locations will not be acceptable. In addition, Registrar must submit URL and location of Port 43 WHOIS server. / /4) Registrars must publicly display of the name of CEO, President, and/or other responsible officer(s)./ So indeed, the home address of officers was never part of the discussion, but that was likely a simple mistake, not a "ridiculous attempt to smear and discredit". If anything, it is your comment that is exactly what you accuse Rob of. But now it comes, as they further asked for: 1. /ICANN to conduct enhanced due diligence on all Registrars and Registries (including but not limited to owners, officers, board of directors) ICANN accredits, or has accredited, to include, but not limited to: /// // //// * /criminal checks; / * /credit checks; / * /financial history and solvency; / * /corporate/company structure and ownership. / // (LE - Recommendations.doc - sent by Bobby Flaim on Jan 01 2011) I think asking for data on the financial history and solvency of officers and others is ridiculous. Best, Volker Am 14.07.2016 um 18:49 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
Correct Terri. Ridiculous attempt to smear and discredit.
Contactable information does not require home details, and no one has ever claimed otherwise.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Terri Stumme <terri.stumme@legitscript.com<mailto:terri.stumme@legitscript.com>> wrote:
Law enforcement never requested "personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website." Law enforcement requested only that the names of the executives be posted on the registrar's website, and that contact information for the registrar; i.e., company address and telephone number, not the home address of senior staff.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com<mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com>> wrote: On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote: So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching and suggestions, pants made are baseless and have no argument.
You appear to turn many ideas / comments you don't understand into some sort of personal attack.
Perhaps if you had * read the document * understood the document * attended any of the multiple Registrar&LEA meetings where some of their wants (most of which they never expected to get and many of which they couldn't provide any reason for asking for) you wouldn't be jumping so quickly to these weird conclusions.
YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ?
One (of many) examples ..
LEAs wanted the personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website.
Not simply provided (as is law in most locales) to the company regulating authority in that region - most of whom DO NOT make that information public without a warrant for very valid reasons
Not even just submitted to ICANN (as indeed much information about the management of a registrar already is) for them to know / leak
But published for anyone and everyone on the registration website
If someone LEA or otherwise wants to to talk to my Registrar, they can do so at the office (by appointment) or by phone or by email or through the ticket system or any number of other *appropriate* and *documented* methods - they DO NOT need to know about and turn up at my HOME address
Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com<mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com> Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR
* domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups *
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Terri Stumme Investigative Analyst <RAA Negotiations_Transcript- Update on the RAA Negotiations (EN) (1).pdf> <LEA Recommendations (1).pdf> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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.
Rob I hope you reply to Mine, Terri¹s & Kiran¹s Mail ? Regards -VA From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Terri Stumme <terri.stumme@legitscript.com> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08 PM To: Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com> Cc: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible requirements from GAC / law enforcement recommended documents Law enforcement never requested "personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website." Law enforcement requested only that the names of the executives be posted on the registrar's website, and that contact information for the registrar; i.e., company address and telephone number, not the home address of senior staff. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com> wrote:
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching and suggestions, pants made are baseless and have no argument.
You appear to turn many ideas / comments you don't understand into some sort of personal attack.
Perhaps if you had * read the document * understood the document * attended any of the multiple Registrar&LEA meetings where some of their wants (most of which they never expected to get and many of which they couldn't provide any reason for asking for) you wouldn't be jumping so quickly to these weird conclusions.
YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ?
One (of many) examples ..
LEAs wanted the personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website.
Not simply provided (as is law in most locales) to the company regulating authority in that region - most of whom DO NOT make that information public without a warrant for very valid reasons
Not even just submitted to ICANN (as indeed much information about the management of a registrar already is) for them to know / leak
But published for anyone and everyone on the registration website
If someone LEA or otherwise wants to to talk to my Registrar, they can do so at the office (by appointment) or by phone or by email or through the ticket system or any number of other *appropriate* and *documented* methods - they DO NOT need to know about and turn up at my HOME address
Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR
* domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups *
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Terri Stumme Investigative Analyst _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Team, I would suggest that instead of continuing this particular thread that seems to be a back-and-forth about the interpretation and motivations of the LEA “recommended possible requirements” document (note the title), that all members of the work party simply read the very straight-forward two page document and come to their own conclusions about its contents. It should take no more than a couple minutes. I’m sure that we can discuss further the reasons/goals/uses cases for the particular asks the LEA team made in that document as part of our further deliberative process down the line, but for now, this document is very succinct in naming various POTENTIAL data gathering/maintenance and display requirements that involve RDS elements plus some others likely unrelated to the RDS, but with impact on domain registrars. As such it is a very good example of a list of potential requirements, but due to its brevity doesn’t supply the reasoning/use cases behind the requests. That’s fine, since we have members of this WP who either helped draft this document or provided advice and input into it who we can tap to flesh out the stories behind the requests once that time arrives. That goes for almost all the requirements and documents we are gathering right now - the whole point in having a diverse WP membership is to bring perspective to the often dry or sparse documentation we do have to work with to better inform our understanding of what different requirements and requests are trying to accomplish. Understanding those needs may lead to accepting the need/recommendation, accepting the need but providing a different approach, or rejecting the need and thus the recommended actions. Ascribing motives and/or accepting/rejecting needs/requirements/requests at this stage of the game is thus premature and counter-productive to our overall work plan, so I would respectfully request that we refrain from doing so until we reach the part of our work plan where we actually can shed full light on various issues so we can weigh them fully and with as little bias as possible, and go through that part of the process in an orderly fashion. Best, Rod Rasmussen VP, Cybersecurity - <http://www.infoblox.com/>- <http://www.infoblox.com/>
On Jul 14, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal <va@bladebrains.com> wrote:
Rob
I hope you reply to Mine, Terri’s & Kiran’s Mail ?
Regards -VA
From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Terri Stumme <terri.stumme@legitscript.com <mailto:terri.stumme@legitscript.com>> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08 PM To: Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com <mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com>> Cc: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible requirements from GAC / law enforcement recommended documents
Law enforcement never requested "personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website." Law enforcement requested only that the names of the executives be posted on the registrar's website, and that contact information for the registrar; i.e., company address and telephone number, not the home address of senior staff.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com <mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com>> wrote:
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching and suggestions, pants made are baseless and have no argument.
You appear to turn many ideas / comments you don't understand into some sort of personal attack.
Perhaps if you had * read the document * understood the document * attended any of the multiple Registrar&LEA meetings where some of their wants (most of which they never expected to get and many of which they couldn't provide any reason for asking for) you wouldn't be jumping so quickly to these weird conclusions.
YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ?
One (of many) examples ..
LEAs wanted the personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website.
Not simply provided (as is law in most locales) to the company regulating authority in that region - most of whom DO NOT make that information public without a warrant for very valid reasons
Not even just submitted to ICANN (as indeed much information about the management of a registrar already is) for them to know / leak
But published for anyone and everyone on the registration website
If someone LEA or otherwise wants to to talk to my Registrar, they can do so at the office (by appointment) or by phone or by email or through the ticket system or any number of other *appropriate* and *documented* methods - they DO NOT need to know about and turn up at my HOME address
Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com <mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com> Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR
* domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups *
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
-- Terri Stumme Investigative Analyst _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
On 2016-07-14 17:38, Terri Stumme wrote:
Law enforcement never requested "personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website."
My recollections from what is around 7 years ago now are: * the original "ask" dating back to pre 2009 was for the names and contact information for all executives and senior staff to be published Other Registrars may recall the Brussels meeting (and earlier ones) where I believe this was discussed on our Tuesday and or have access to RrSG mailings which may hold more data (as I only joined that mailling list at the start of 2010 There was a meeting I believe in Washington in 2010 between registrars and leas which I couldn't attend, which may also provide more details on their wants and whys * this was then reduced down to just the names and I thought optional for other contact data I certainly recall meeting with representatives from LEAs (including SOCA, FBI and Interpol) and discussing which jurisdictions provided/published publicly the company officer and ownership data whilst at the San Francisco meeting "Registrar will display on the Registrar’s main website, and update as necessary, the name of the company’s executive management personnel, including its CEO and President as well as any other responsible officer(s) or executive(s)" with notes from 2011/2012 is on https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Disclosure+of+Additional+Registrar+I... And differences between one wishlist and another are summarised at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/dec/icann-raa-lea-recommendations-11-03-... Which is after Registrars / GNSO rejected the request, but were mostly prepared to let ICANN have the data (and had already become part of the accreditation process for new registrars to inform icann of such) * my understanding was that the RAA negotiations team / GNSO had reduced this officially reduced down to just "told to ICANN" and whilst I dont have a document showing that to hand, it is implied on https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Point+of+Contact+on+Malicious+Conduc... * the final version of the RAA went back to having it on the website and there was some discussion post-publication of the final RAA as to why that had reappeared having been removed once. I don't know if my browser is simply broken or the urls have simply moved, but http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/rap/idt/to/gnso/council/15nov10/en.p... cant be found which I thought might have more details Perhaps someone from the Registrar RAA Negotiating Team can provide more details. This is getting away from the salient point(s) which I would suggest are 1. if documents are circulated (and there is likely to be a lot of them) - a summary in the email of what the doc is and why it's being circulated will help all of us 2. remembering that many items are just someones "wish-list" and not always actual/current/real/practical/legally-permissable requirements 3. we're all going to disagree with others on this subject as we all have our own separate opinions, history, agenda and expectations I felt Volker got "jumped on" (and he has a significant amount of valuable history within ICANN & Regstrars to draw upon) who has attended more meetings with Compliance and LEAs than I (and I've been to a lot of them) which was unnecessary. Particularly when his comments related to highlighting that part of the LEA wants detailled all sorts of data collection and retention requirements including "techy stuff" about the IP/User-Agnet/etc which doesn't tally with the actual way things are necessarily done, along with being specifically illegal/outlawed in certain areas I highly recommend reading https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kohnstamm-to-crocker-at... QUOTE: 'The Working Party finds the proposed new requirement to annually re-verify both the telephone number and the e-mail address and publish these contact details in the publicly accessible WHOIS database excessive and therefore unlawful.' Amongst other useful "gems" Which leaves us as Registrars the dilema that Law Enforcement have worked to add Contractual Requirements which the Law makers say are Unlawful !
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching
Yes, in some cases they are significantly over-reaching and/or trying to shift responsibility/work-load and/or trying to bypass "due-process" - everyone wants to make their life/job easier and cheaper :p
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ?
http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/EPICPrivHR/2006/PHR2006-WHOIS_.html The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver. Rob
Its 2016 Rob :-) Not getting into the Nitty & Gritty here - Just one thing what you have written in the last line : "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS name server.” Here the DNS is verified by the WHOIS server and thus propagated automatically. But the Domain Information - Anyone can register a Domain name in My name and or Address - so the process should be robust enough - treating the infringement on privacy / identity / et all, verifiable and genuine ! For a case e.g. : In India, we are experimenting with the validation of our Social Security ID for Hotel Checkins – The Guest goes to the reception, fills in his name etc. and then fills in his ID no. (The ADHAAR CARD) and the software, pre-authenticated by the Govt. of India, latches on to the engine and pulls up verified data (via OCR) and displays to the hotel person taking the checking. BUT this is Secured through network protocols and layers and security protocols both for the system and for the people. Since the access is limited to the device and the data cannot be exported, the privacy is still secured and concealed, in a digital locker. All corners of the world are not Finland where locks on doors are seldom - U have ‘em, I have ‘em and Locks is a all time good growing business today ! Mit freundlichen Grüßen Mein gelehrter Freund, मेरे दोस्त -VA On 7/15/16, 1:01 AM, "Rob Golding" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rob.golding@astutium.com> wrote:
On 2016-07-14 17:38, Terri Stumme wrote:
Law enforcement never requested "personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website."
My recollections from what is around 7 years ago now are:
* the original "ask" dating back to pre 2009 was for the names and contact information for all executives and senior staff to be published
Other Registrars may recall the Brussels meeting (and earlier ones) where I believe this was discussed on our Tuesday and or have access to RrSG mailings which may hold more data (as I only joined that mailling list at the start of 2010
There was a meeting I believe in Washington in 2010 between registrars and leas which I couldn't attend, which may also provide more details on their wants and whys
* this was then reduced down to just the names and I thought optional for other contact data
I certainly recall meeting with representatives from LEAs (including SOCA, FBI and Interpol) and discussing which jurisdictions provided/published publicly the company officer and ownership data whilst at the San Francisco meeting
"Registrar will display on the Registrar’s main website, and update as necessary, the name of the company’s executive management personnel, including its CEO and President as well as any other responsible officer(s) or executive(s)" with notes from 2011/2012 is on https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Disclosure+of+Additional+Registrar+I... ormation
And differences between one wishlist and another are summarised at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/dec/icann-raa-lea-recommendations-11-03-... .pdf
Which is after Registrars / GNSO rejected the request, but were mostly prepared to let ICANN have the data (and had already become part of the accreditation process for new registrars to inform icann of such)
* my understanding was that the RAA negotiations team / GNSO had reduced this officially reduced down to just "told to ICANN" and whilst I dont have a document showing that to hand, it is implied on https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Point+of+Contact+on+Malicious+Conduc... Issues
* the final version of the RAA went back to having it on the website and there was some discussion post-publication of the final RAA as to why that had reappeared having been removed once.
I don't know if my browser is simply broken or the urls have simply moved, but http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/rap/idt/to/gnso/council/15nov10/en.p... cant be found which I thought might have more details
Perhaps someone from the Registrar RAA Negotiating Team can provide more details.
This is getting away from the salient point(s) which I would suggest are
1. if documents are circulated (and there is likely to be a lot of them) - a summary in the email of what the doc is and why it's being circulated will help all of us
2. remembering that many items are just someones "wish-list" and not always actual/current/real/practical/legally-permissable requirements
3. we're all going to disagree with others on this subject as we all have our own separate opinions, history, agenda and expectations
I felt Volker got "jumped on" (and he has a significant amount of valuable history within ICANN & Regstrars to draw upon) who has attended more meetings with Compliance and LEAs than I (and I've been to a lot of them) which was unnecessary.
Particularly when his comments related to highlighting that part of the LEA wants detailled all sorts of data collection and retention requirements including "techy stuff" about the IP/User-Agnet/etc which doesn't tally with the actual way things are necessarily done, along with being specifically illegal/outlawed in certain areas
I highly recommend reading https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kohnstamm-to-crocker-at... lah-26sep12-en.pdf
QUOTE: 'The Working Party finds the proposed new requirement to annually re-verify both the telephone number and the e-mail address and publish these contact details in the publicly accessible WHOIS database excessive and therefore unlawful.'
Amongst other useful "gems"
Which leaves us as Registrars the dilema that Law Enforcement have worked to add Contractual Requirements which the Law makers say are Unlawful !
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching
Yes, in some cases they are significantly over-reaching and/or trying to shift responsibility/work-load and/or trying to bypass "due-process" - everyone wants to make their life/job easier and cheaper :p
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ?
http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/EPICPrivHR/2006/PHR2006-WHOIS_.html
The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver.
Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
On 15 Jul 2016, at 3:56 AM, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal <va@bladebrains.com> wrote:
All corners of the world are not Finland where locks on doors are seldom - U have ‘em, I have ‘em and Locks is a all time good growing business today !
Having recently travelled to Finland, like so many of us, I find this comment extremely odd. David
Note that I have already sent him some private emails and may need to send some more in the future. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:22 PM To: Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible requirements from GAC / law enforcement recommended documents Importance: High On 15 Jul 2016, at 3:56 AM, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal <va@bladebrains.com<mailto:va@bladebrains.com>> wrote: All corners of the world are not Finland where locks on doors are seldom - U have ‘em, I have ‘em and Locks is a all time good growing business today ! Having recently travelled to Finland, like so many of us, I find this comment extremely odd. David
Let's please follow Rod's suggestion on this topic. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:32 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible requirements from GAC / law enforcement recommended documents On 2016-07-14 17:38, Terri Stumme wrote:
Law enforcement never requested "personal details, home address etc of senior STAFF of a Registrar listed on a website."
My recollections from what is around 7 years ago now are: * the original "ask" dating back to pre 2009 was for the names and contact information for all executives and senior staff to be published Other Registrars may recall the Brussels meeting (and earlier ones) where I believe this was discussed on our Tuesday and or have access to RrSG mailings which may hold more data (as I only joined that mailling list at the start of 2010 There was a meeting I believe in Washington in 2010 between registrars and leas which I couldn't attend, which may also provide more details on their wants and whys * this was then reduced down to just the names and I thought optional for other contact data I certainly recall meeting with representatives from LEAs (including SOCA, FBI and Interpol) and discussing which jurisdictions provided/published publicly the company officer and ownership data whilst at the San Francisco meeting "Registrar will display on the Registrar’s main website, and update as necessary, the name of the company’s executive management personnel, including its CEO and President as well as any other responsible officer(s) or executive(s)" with notes from 2011/2012 is on https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Disclosure+of+Additional+Registrar+I... And differences between one wishlist and another are summarised at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/dec/icann-raa-lea-recommendations-11-03-... Which is after Registrars / GNSO rejected the request, but were mostly prepared to let ICANN have the data (and had already become part of the accreditation process for new registrars to inform icann of such) * my understanding was that the RAA negotiations team / GNSO had reduced this officially reduced down to just "told to ICANN" and whilst I dont have a document showing that to hand, it is implied on https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Point+of+Contact+on+Malicious+Conduc... * the final version of the RAA went back to having it on the website and there was some discussion post-publication of the final RAA as to why that had reappeared having been removed once. I don't know if my browser is simply broken or the urls have simply moved, but http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/rap/idt/to/gnso/council/15nov10/en.p... cant be found which I thought might have more details Perhaps someone from the Registrar RAA Negotiating Team can provide more details. This is getting away from the salient point(s) which I would suggest are 1. if documents are circulated (and there is likely to be a lot of them) - a summary in the email of what the doc is and why it's being circulated will help all of us 2. remembering that many items are just someones "wish-list" and not always actual/current/real/practical/legally-permissable requirements 3. we're all going to disagree with others on this subject as we all have our own separate opinions, history, agenda and expectations I felt Volker got "jumped on" (and he has a significant amount of valuable history within ICANN & Regstrars to draw upon) who has attended more meetings with Compliance and LEAs than I (and I've been to a lot of them) which was unnecessary. Particularly when his comments related to highlighting that part of the LEA wants detailled all sorts of data collection and retention requirements including "techy stuff" about the IP/User-Agnet/etc which doesn't tally with the actual way things are necessarily done, along with being specifically illegal/outlawed in certain areas I highly recommend reading https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kohnstamm-to-crocker-at... QUOTE: 'The Working Party finds the proposed new requirement to annually re-verify both the telephone number and the e-mail address and publish these contact details in the publicly accessible WHOIS database excessive and therefore unlawful.' Amongst other useful "gems" Which leaves us as Registrars the dilema that Law Enforcement have worked to add Contractual Requirements which the Law makers say are Unlawful !
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
So now v agree to say that GAC / Law enforcement is over reaching
Yes, in some cases they are significantly over-reaching and/or trying to shift responsibility/work-load and/or trying to bypass "due-process" - everyone wants to make their life/job easier and cheaper :p
On 2016-07-14 08:58, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal wrote:
YET we come back to the table and talk of Privacy and other related factors. How can it be ?
http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/EPICPrivHR/2006/PHR2006-WHOIS_.html The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver. Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal -
David Cake -
Gomes, Chuck -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Rob Golding -
Rod Rasmussen -
Terri Stumme -
Volker Greimann