April 2008 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 16, 2008

April 16, 2008

Sebastian? and all, Despite your slight and obvious attempt and baiting, I am neither liberal nor conservative. I do not belong to any political party nor do I have any aliance to any, and never have. I like to believe, as I have stated many times before over the past 9+ years, that I am politically balanced. >:) I am far more interested in the practicaly correct rather than the "Politically correct". The former is far more productive than the latter... -----Original Message----- >From: Sebastian Ricciardi <sricciardi(a)fibertel.com.ar> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 2:41 PM >To: "'Jeffrey A. Williams'" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, 'Adam Peake' <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> >Cc: 'At-Large writ small' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: RE: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >Whoever you might be, you´re far from conservative in what you send. Don´t worry, I´m liberal in what I accept. > >LOL > >S. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Martes, 15 de Abril de 2008 06:08 p.m. >To: Sebastian Ricciardi; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Adam Peake'; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' >Cc: 'At-Large writ small' >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >Sebastian and all, > > I knew Jon well, and always disagreed with him on >this. Thankfully this was only an informational RFC, >and as such should be viewed in that light. Certainly >it was not meant as gospel. > > Unfortunately Jon took this addage of his to hart, >and as a result it was a factor, if not a major one, >in his early demise, god rest his soul... > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Sebastian Ricciardi <sricciardi(a)fibertel.com.ar> >>Sent: Apr 15, 2008 1:46 PM >>To: 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, 'Adam Peake' <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> >>Cc: 'At-Large writ small' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy >> >>ALAC and the @Large community would be benefited from the "Robustness >>Principle" enounced by Jon Postel in RFC 1122: >> >>"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" >> >>Best regards, >> >>Sebastian >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer >>Sent: Domingo, 13 de Abril de 2008 12:25 p.m. >>To: Adam Peake >>Cc: At-Large writ small >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of >>Interest Policy >> >>Adam Peake wrote: >>> The code of conduct is excessive, how about >>> replacing it with: ALAC members should work in a >>> collegial and cooperative manner. The end. >>> >>> Really is a bizarre document. >>> >> >>Seconded! >> >>--Wendy >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG. >>Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1376 - Release Date: 13/04/2008 >>01:45 p.m. >> >> >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG. >>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1378 - Release Date: 15/04/2008 >>09:12 a.m. >> >> >>egards, > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >=============================================================== >Updated 1/26/04 >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com >My Phone: 214-244-4827 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] who does the ALAC represent, was WHOIS study group
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 16, 2008

April 16, 2008

Bret and all, Excellent points in your remarks in response below! Well done! Who does the ALAC represent? Well my answer is at the moment it represents no one but should purport to represent users of all types without restriction or censor. -----Original Message----- >From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 7:27 PM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] who does the ALAC represent, was WHOIS study group > >On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:43 PM, John Levine wrote: >> The arguments about personal privacy and Burmese freedom fighters have >> never impressed me, not because I don't think they're important, but >> because removing info from WHOIS a lousy way to address them > >Funny, but you could reverse those, and you'd have my position. I >think fighting fraud and providing consumers accurate contact data for >the companies with which they do business are really, really >important, but WHOIS is a lousy way to address them. > >What's really interesting here is that we can agree on the ends, but >not the means. > >On Apr 15, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote: >> >> Oversimply stated, we are interested in seeing a compromise that would >> allow a consumer to use accurate WHOIS data to help determine the >> credibility of a Web site with which the consumer is about to do >> business.... > >My own sense of it is that if a website does not reveal its corporate >name, corporate address, phone number and email address (the data >you'd get from whois) on its own site, you'd best steer clear of it. I >also have the feeling that consumers who have doubts about a website >are more likely to Google the company name than to search whois. Those >who would be inclined to use the whois are probably those who would be >savvy enough to avoid unknown site operators altogether. If you do a >study, this sort of consumer behavior would be something to study. > >One last thought: any study should randomly select the participants. >If you self-select, then every IP lawyer in the country will respond >by saying, "oh yes, we use this all the time and it's of great >utility." Do a study that can't be gamed by those with a horse in the >race. > > -- Bret > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 16, 2008

April 16, 2008

JFC and all, I for one am not sure the mentioned RFC is indeed a principal at all, but rather a reflection of Jon's point of view which he strongly believed in. As I said, I amongst many others at the time, disagree with Jon on this point of view/RFC. I along with many others are also not sure but fully recognize that "data communications strata (Internet, content exchanges)" which is political speak, requires a conservative approach or even warrants same, but fully also recognize that there are a few, whom choose to use such as a means for justifying censorship. This approach is of course is wrong headed and damaging on many levels. Openness and transparency would obviously be contrary to Jon's RFC/point of view, and as such is a balance to achieve and help to insure accountability. -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 4:06 PM >To: Sebastian Ricciardi <sricciardi(a)fibertel.com.ar>, "'Jeffrey A. Williams'" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, 'Adam Peake' <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> >Cc: 'At-Large writ small' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >At 23:41 15/04/2008, Sebastian Ricciardi wrote: >>LOL >>S. > >More seriously, this principle is well adjusted to the >datacommunications strata (Internet, content exchanges) and to >English. It is possibly far less adequate in the semantic strata and >multicultural environment (meaning and representaion exchanges). You >MUST be conservative in what you receive because the rest of the >world is necessarily diverse and therfore liberal (in the way your >pragmatics sees it) in what it sends. > >This certainly is a major issue for ALAC as there are not only >multiple linguistic but also technical, legal and political cultures >among @larges. >jfc > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >>Sent: Martes, 15 de Abril de 2008 06:08 p.m. >>To: Sebastian Ricciardi; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Adam Peake'; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' >>Cc: 'At-Large writ small' >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and >>Conflicts of Interest Policy >> >>Sebastian and all, >> >> I knew Jon well, and always disagreed with him on >>this. Thankfully this was only an informational RFC, >>and as such should be viewed in that light. Certainly >>it was not meant as gospel. >> >> Unfortunately Jon took this addage of his to hart, >>and as a result it was a factor, if not a major one, >>in his early demise, god rest his soul... > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Beau and all, I think it is painfully obvious that the SSAC would far better serve the ICANN participants, and the far larger internet community, if it first cleaned up it's own DNS configuration so as not to expose us all to dangerous malware and spyware. See:http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=icann.org&token=25402… But again, perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part. Yet hope springs eternal... -----Original Message----- >From: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 12:38 PM >To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >The scary thing, though, is if the policies sunset, maybe the risk is >losing WHOIS data or an analogue to it, altogether? Or do you think if a >public outcry were to ensue, that would encourage re-addressing the >issue via a different protocol, such as the one the SSAC is looking at? > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy >Seltzer >Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:33 PM >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >My personal viewpoint, after seven years of WHOIS task forces and >working groups, is that more studies will not be useful in policy >development, but rather are proposed by several constituencies to >justify further delay with the status quo. > >I see WHOIS as a political problem at this point, not a problem of lack >of facts. GNSO constituencies have been wedded to positions based on >their own interests, and they're unlikely to change those positions even >with new studies. So studies won't change anything in policy >development. Without assurance that constituencies will change their >policy recommendations if shown new facts, I don't see that >registrant-fee-funded studies serve any ICANN purpose. > >For that reason, I have recommended against ICANN funding any new WHOIS >studies. I'd rather see pressure to reach consensus based on a >sunsetting of policies that no longer command consensus. > >--Wendy > > >Ross Rader wrote: >> The problem with more study on this issue is that it is only a >> delaying tactic intended to preserve the status quo. The issue has >> been studied to death. The proposed studies will not be well bounded, >> nor geared towards action. They will be intentionally broad and the >> analysis, if any is done, will be purposely weak and obtuse. >> >> I have no doubt that there will be many people that sign onto the >> notion of further studies with the best of intentions, but I strongly >> doubt that the results will point us in any different direction than >> what we've already discussed and described over the past ten years. >> Worse still, those that seek to abuse the privacy rights of >> individuals for their own gain will enjoy another few years free pass >> to this open database as we study the nooks and crannies of this issue >even further. >> >> /ross >> >> Brendler, Beau wrote: >>> Danny Younger, Wendy Seltzer and I are in a WHOIS study group with a >>> really tight time frame, like three weeks, before it has to report >>> back to the GNSO council on whether further study of WHOIS is needed, > >>> along with other issues. >>> >>> I think opinions differ among the three of us in the group, which has > >>> about a dozen members. Opinions aside, I wanted to see if the NA RALO > >>> would like to convey either as a group or as individuals their >>> opinions on the issues presented to the WHOIS working group. >>> > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >.icann.org >Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >------ > >*** >Scanned > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Darlene and all, Well we agree here at least. Amazing eh? -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 12:48 PM >To: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >Hi all, > >I must say, I'm pretty new and I'm already cynical about the whole Whois >thing. I'm not adamant on this in any way, but pretty much share >Wendy's POV that more studies are just going to prolong the agony. > >D > >Darlene A. Thompson >Community Access Program Administrator >Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >Phone: (867) 975-5631 >Fax: (867) 975-5610 >E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross >Rader >Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:41 PM >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > > > >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Ross, I'm not so anxious to pick up torches, but there are new people >> coming on board in the NA RALO community who don't have the benefit of >> your years of experience as a senior executive at a registrar dealing >> with this issue, so that's why I posted this here -- in hopes of >hearing >> something from new faces in the room, groups representing users, >> consumers, etc. > >Beau - > >It would be awesome if we heard something new from new people. Perhaps >that's where the studies need to be focused. The rest we can deal with >through the GNSO Reform - term limits for councillors, making it easier >to create new constituencies, etc. > >It might even work out that we both get what we want :-) > >Sorry for sounding so cynical on this point. It has nothing to do with >you, Webwatch, the NA RALO, etc. and everything to do with the business >user community having way too much influence over the process (via their > >stranglehold on the IPC, BCUC and ISPC council seats). > >best, > >/ross > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >.icann.org >Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >------ > egards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Beau and all, For your and everyone else's information, I and our members "enthusiasm" is a fresh as the day I was borne. Although I cannot say what the regisstrar's constituency "enthusiasm" is or is not, I can imagine it is also just as fresh! Anyway thank you for your opinion! >:) -----Original Message----- >From: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 12:14 PM >To: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >>Worse still, those that seek to abuse the privacy rights of individuals >for their own gain will enjoy another few years free pass to this open >database as we study the nooks and crannies of this issue even further.< > >Yes, this is basically what the registrar constituency has been saying >for years, from what I've been able to gather, and what it's still >saying now. Maybe it's time to pass the torch to a new group with fresh >enthusiasm who may be able to get something done. > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross >Rader >Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:38 PM >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >The problem with more study on this issue is that it is only a delaying >tactic intended to preserve the status quo. The issue has been studied >to death. The proposed studies will not be well bounded, nor geared >towards action. They will be intentionally broad and the analysis, if >any is done, will be purposely weak and obtuse. > >I have no doubt that there will be many people that sign onto the notion >of further studies with the best of intentions, but I strongly doubt >that the results will point us in any different direction than what >we've already discussed and described over the past ten years. Worse >still, those that seek to abuse the privacy rights of individuals for >their own gain will enjoy another few years free pass to this open >database as we study the nooks and crannies of this issue even further. > >/ross > >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Danny Younger, Wendy Seltzer and I are in a WHOIS study group with a >> really tight time frame, like three weeks, before it has to report >back >> to the GNSO council on whether further study of WHOIS is needed, along >> with other issues. >> >> I think opinions differ among the three of us in the group, which has >> about a dozen members. Opinions aside, I wanted to see if the NA RALO >> would like to convey either as a group or as individuals their >opinions >> on the issues presented to the WHOIS working group. >> >> This morning, it seemed as though there was consensus that yes, more >> study (provided it's circumscribed and directed at yielding some sort >of >> action on the issue) is required. Wendy took an opposing view, which >I'm >> sure she would be glad to share with you. WebWatch's view is that more >> study is needed, and in fact we are studying the issue ourselves. We >are >> about to put a survey into the field that will be statistically >> representative of New York State only (because it is being funded by >the >> NY State Attorney General's office). The survey is about online fraud >in >> general, but of the 30 questions, I have put in some related to ICANN >> and WHOIS, for instance, have you ever registered a domain name, have >> you ever heard of the WHOIS database, have you ever used it to help >you >> make a decision about whether to use a Web site's services or not, was >> it useful, etc. >> >> Below is our (WebWatch's) response, then below that are the action >steps >> for the study group, if you want to use that as a template. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brendler, Beau >> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:57 PM >> To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG'; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> Subject: Whois study group -- category rankings >> >>>From Beau Brendler and Consumer Reports WebWatch >> >> We believe all seven categories are worth further study. Here's how we >> think they should be ranked in order of priority: >> >> 1. (5) Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse. >> 2. (7) WHOIS data accuracy. >> 3. (1) WHOIS misuse. >> 4. (4) Demand and motivation for use of privacy services. >> 5. (2) Compliance with data protection laws/registrar accreditation >> agreements. >> 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement/dispute resolution >> requests. >> 7. (3) Availability of privacy services. >> >> WebWatch's perspective on WHOIS could be almost characterized as >similar >> to that of law enforcement or the FTC. Oversimply stated, we are >> interested in seeing a compromise that would allow a consumer to use >> accurate WHOIS data to help determine the credibility of a Web site >with >> which the consumer is about to do business, while not compromising, >say, >> the right of Burmese citizens to create Web sites to describe the >> conditions within their country without fear of being tracked down and >> harmed by their government via WHOIS data. >> >> I will also ask the ALAC to weigh in and report back offline with any >> additional information. The north American region seems to have the >> strongest feelings on this issue. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> ____________________________________________________ >> From: owner-gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster >> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:56 PM >> To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] WHOIS study group call Tuesday 8 April >> 2008 at 15:00 UTC] >> >> >> Thanks to all who could make our short-notice kick-off call on WHOIS >> studies. We will be meeting on Tuesdays at the same time and we have >a >> short window by which to recommend to the GNSO Council areas for >further >> study (if any) on WHOIS (currently due to the Council by 24 April). >> Following is a short overview of our call, key deliverables for next >> week and next steps. >> >> 1. Overview >> >> The group discussed how to proceed. We first discussed whether >studies >> should be commissioned at all, and confirmed that one option could be >> deciding to recommend to the GNSO Council that no studies of WHOIS be >> done. This view was supported by some participants who are skeptical >> that the outcome of any study would change the views of entrenched >> parties on WHOIS issues. We also discussed certain areas that might >be >> studied further, such as the potential impact on registrars operating >in >> countries with strict privacy laws if those countries were to begin >> enforcing those laws (in the gTLD space). There was the concern that >> new WHOIS-related issues will arise that will require consideration >> notwithstanding the current WHOIS "stalemate", such as issues related >to >> IDNs, greater privacy enforcement by countries, etc..., that may >warrant >> further study. >> >> I described the format and content of the summary "Report on Public >> Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS" of Feb. 25, 2008. Note in >> particular that the study suggestions are grouped into seven topic >> areas. >> >> 1. WHOIS misuse >> 2. Compliance with data protection laws and registrar accreditation >> agreements 3. Availability of privacy services 4. Demand and >motivation >> for use of privacy services 5. Impact of WHOIS data protection on >crime >> and abuse 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and >dispute >> resolution requests 7. WHOIS data accuracy >> >> These seven areas can be thought of as topical questions for further >> study. If the consensus of the group is to proceed to identify >specific >> areas for further study (meaning rather than recommending that studies >> not be conducted), the group might find it useful to decide first >which >> of these groupings address questions you think having data about would >> inform the debate (see Key Deliverables below). >> >> There was one question about whether a budget exists to conduct >studies. >> >> I responded that there is no pre-set budget but there is a place >> holder in the budget that the policy development group has submitted, >> and there is the understanding and expectation that the Council may >> request studies that ICANN would engage in. Also, I noted that there >is >> a gating process -- the Council has specifically noted in its >> resolutions that it would first identify certain studies that it >thought >> should then be priced out, and then, after those estimates are >provided, >> make any specific requests with those estimates in mind. We also note >> that costs for various studies could vary significantly based on size, >> scope, complexity, etc. >> >> 2. Key deliverables >> >> - Everyone will read the summary "Report on Public Suggestions on >> Further Studies of WHOIS" - link provided by Glen and below >> >> - Everyone will consider the threshold question of whether WHOIS >should >> be studied further -- whether any studies of WHOIS would make a >> meaningful impact. We will discuss this further on the next call. >> >> - Everyone will review the suggestions with an eye to whether/or which >> proposed studies would rise to your short favorites list -- or those >you >> think should not be done. We did not discuss this on the call, but if >> the group would like to email these to me ahead of time, say by >Friday, >> I could total up the results of this initial view for the call. >> >> Again, as I suggested on the call, to approach the question of which >of >> 25 suggestions you might support, you may find it useful to first >> consider which of the groupings address questions you think that >having >> data about would inform the debate. Once you have identified which >> questions you want to answer, then you could focus on only those >> particular groupings and consider which study approach (or combination >> of approaches) will best answer your questions. In some cases we have >> indicated that the different study proposals answer slightly different >> questions. In some cases we indicate that some of the approaches are >> likely to give better data, or that some of the approaches are likely >to >> be less expensive. When you think about the fundamental questions >asked >> by each grouping, you may find it more useful to consider the >questions >> asked by each grouping as follows: >> >> >> 1. How big is the WHOIS misuse problem that may need to be >solved? >> >> 2. Is there a non-compliance with data protection laws problem >> that needs to be solved? >> >> 3. Are there already market-driven solutions available? >> >> 4. Is there demand for market-driven solutions, and are they >being >> >> used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes? >> >> 5. Do WHOIS data protections lead to abuse and misuse? >> >> 6. Are provisions for providing protected WHOIS data to law >> enforcement for investigation of crime and abuse effective? >> >> 7. Is WHOIS data accurate? >> >> - Staff will check on the status of an earlier study on the economics >of >> the DNS that we understand to have been approved by the ICANN Board >but >> not completed to-date. >> >> - Recruit ISP representative -- in process >> >> 3. Next steps >> >> - Next call Tuesday April 15 (a yucky day in the US, I note) >> - See tasks listed in "key deliverables" above. >> - Email with any questions. >> >> Also, please feel free to correct or add to my summary. >> >> Thanks, Liz >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >.icann.org >> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >> ------ > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >.icann.org >Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >------ > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Wendy and all, I agree with your analysis to the degree that Whois issues especially those revolving around privacy and disclosure or the eroding attempts of personal privacy as it relates to Whois data. I particularly agree with you last paragraph if I understand the nuance of it correctly and fully. As the current USG administration sunsets and a new administration is on the rise, I believe that many of the erosions of privacy will be either halted significantly reversed. However this also may be wishful thinking on my part. In any event, my earlier post on this thread still stands. If this position of our members including myself disgruntals or displeases anyone, well that's just too bad. -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 12:32 PM >To: >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >My personal viewpoint, after seven years of WHOIS task forces and >working groups, is that more studies will not be useful in policy >development, but rather are proposed by several constituencies to >justify further delay with the status quo. > >I see WHOIS as a political problem at this point, not a problem of lack >of facts. GNSO constituencies have been wedded to positions based on >their own interests, and they're unlikely to change those positions even >with new studies. So studies won't change anything in policy >development. Without assurance that constituencies will change their >policy recommendations if shown new facts, I don't see that >registrant-fee-funded studies serve any ICANN purpose. > >For that reason, I have recommended against ICANN funding any new WHOIS >studies. I'd rather see pressure to reach consensus based on a >sunsetting of policies that no longer command consensus. > >--Wendy > > >Ross Rader wrote: >> The problem with more study on this issue is that it is only a delaying >> tactic intended to preserve the status quo. The issue has been studied >> to death. The proposed studies will not be well bounded, nor geared >> towards action. They will be intentionally broad and the analysis, if >> any is done, will be purposely weak and obtuse. >> >> I have no doubt that there will be many people that sign onto the notion >> of further studies with the best of intentions, but I strongly doubt >> that the results will point us in any different direction than what >> we've already discussed and described over the past ten years. Worse >> still, those that seek to abuse the privacy rights of individuals for >> their own gain will enjoy another few years free pass to this open >> database as we study the nooks and crannies of this issue even further. >> >> /ross >> >> Brendler, Beau wrote: >>> Danny Younger, Wendy Seltzer and I are in a WHOIS study group with a >>> really tight time frame, like three weeks, before it has to report back >>> to the GNSO council on whether further study of WHOIS is needed, along >>> with other issues. >>> >>> I think opinions differ among the three of us in the group, which has >>> about a dozen members. Opinions aside, I wanted to see if the NA RALO >>> would like to convey either as a group or as individuals their opinions >>> on the issues presented to the WHOIS working group. >>> > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Australian Privacy Commissioner to Issue Breach Notification Guidelines
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

All, From several of our insiders at the commission, the push was to lesson privacy rights early on, now that trend has been reversed due to public outrage. This may be why now the details are being kept closely concealed. Of course I cannot and will not reveal our sources for obvious reasons. April 15, 2008) Australia's privacy commissioner Karen Curtis plans to issue draft guidelines regarding data breach notification to help companies address the issue while the details of the Privacy Act revision continue to be hammered out. Government agencies and businesses have contacted the privacy commissioner's office with questions about handling data security breaches. The guidelines will be voluntary; commentary on the guidelines will be accepted through June 16, 2008. The Australian Law Reform Commission's review of the 20-year-old Privacy Act is expected later this year, and it may be some time before new laws are enacted. http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23539443-15306,00.html Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Ross and all, I have to agree totally with Ross'es comments and analysis here. The anti-privacy bigots seem to be unwilling to relent and not satisfied with what limited access that they have now to Whois data. I cannot see any meaningful purpose to yet again another Whois review or "Study group" that would bare any useful fruit. Our members still remain unchanged in our already stated position on Whois, Whois privacy, and Whois accuracy. I do not believe that our members position will change irregardless of whatever goading, or other emphrical/slanderous remarks to the contrary we may be subjected to, as we have been subjected to repeatedly, and again on this forum recently. Frankly it is my own opinion that registrants privacy rights have been abused or otherwise abridged far too frequently and with malice and forethought by members of this very forum amongst other ICANN constituency members, in particular RIAA members whom are members of the IPC. Users non-registrants privacy rights also have been continually abused also by the RIAA/IPC unabated even after loosing nearly every case that has gone before a judge and after the RIAA has been sanctioned financially for their nearly terrorist legal tactics. Why on earth the ICANN bod and staff has allowed that organization along with it's european counterparts to remain members of the IPC is utterly unbelievable and appalling! Quite frankly it is long past time for these anti-privacy right bigots and their followers to have their credentials yanked by DOC. I also know that my position and our members position is widely shared. See:http://w2.eff.org/share/petition/ http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ -----Original Message----- >From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 11:38 AM >To: >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >The problem with more study on this issue is that it is only a delaying >tactic intended to preserve the status quo. The issue has been studied >to death. The proposed studies will not be well bounded, nor geared >towards action. They will be intentionally broad and the analysis, if >any is done, will be purposely weak and obtuse. > >I have no doubt that there will be many people that sign onto the notion >of further studies with the best of intentions, but I strongly doubt >that the results will point us in any different direction than what >we've already discussed and described over the past ten years. Worse >still, those that seek to abuse the privacy rights of individuals for >their own gain will enjoy another few years free pass to this open >database as we study the nooks and crannies of this issue even further. > >/ross > >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Danny Younger, Wendy Seltzer and I are in a WHOIS study group with a >> really tight time frame, like three weeks, before it has to report back >> to the GNSO council on whether further study of WHOIS is needed, along >> with other issues. >> >> I think opinions differ among the three of us in the group, which has >> about a dozen members. Opinions aside, I wanted to see if the NA RALO >> would like to convey either as a group or as individuals their opinions >> on the issues presented to the WHOIS working group. >> >> This morning, it seemed as though there was consensus that yes, more >> study (provided it's circumscribed and directed at yielding some sort of >> action on the issue) is required. Wendy took an opposing view, which I'm >> sure she would be glad to share with you. WebWatch's view is that more >> study is needed, and in fact we are studying the issue ourselves. We are >> about to put a survey into the field that will be statistically >> representative of New York State only (because it is being funded by the >> NY State Attorney General's office). The survey is about online fraud in >> general, but of the 30 questions, I have put in some related to ICANN >> and WHOIS, for instance, have you ever registered a domain name, have >> you ever heard of the WHOIS database, have you ever used it to help you >> make a decision about whether to use a Web site's services or not, was >> it useful, etc. >> >> Below is our (WebWatch's) response, then below that are the action steps >> for the study group, if you want to use that as a template. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brendler, Beau >> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:57 PM >> To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG'; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> Subject: Whois study group -- category rankings >> >>>From Beau Brendler and Consumer Reports WebWatch >> >> We believe all seven categories are worth further study. Here's how we >> think they should be ranked in order of priority: >> >> 1. (5) Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse. >> 2. (7) WHOIS data accuracy. >> 3. (1) WHOIS misuse. >> 4. (4) Demand and motivation for use of privacy services. >> 5. (2) Compliance with data protection laws/registrar accreditation >> agreements. >> 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement/dispute resolution >> requests. >> 7. (3) Availability of privacy services. >> >> WebWatch's perspective on WHOIS could be almost characterized as similar >> to that of law enforcement or the FTC. Oversimply stated, we are >> interested in seeing a compromise that would allow a consumer to use >> accurate WHOIS data to help determine the credibility of a Web site with >> which the consumer is about to do business, while not compromising, say, >> the right of Burmese citizens to create Web sites to describe the >> conditions within their country without fear of being tracked down and >> harmed by their government via WHOIS data. >> >> I will also ask the ALAC to weigh in and report back offline with any >> additional information. The north American region seems to have the >> strongest feelings on this issue. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> ____________________________________________________ >> From: owner-gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster >> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:56 PM >> To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] WHOIS study group call Tuesday 8 April >> 2008 at 15:00 UTC] >> >> >> Thanks to all who could make our short-notice kick-off call on WHOIS >> studies. We will be meeting on Tuesdays at the same time and we have a >> short window by which to recommend to the GNSO Council areas for further >> study (if any) on WHOIS (currently due to the Council by 24 April). >> Following is a short overview of our call, key deliverables for next >> week and next steps. >> >> 1. Overview >> >> The group discussed how to proceed. We first discussed whether studies >> should be commissioned at all, and confirmed that one option could be >> deciding to recommend to the GNSO Council that no studies of WHOIS be >> done. This view was supported by some participants who are skeptical >> that the outcome of any study would change the views of entrenched >> parties on WHOIS issues. We also discussed certain areas that might be >> studied further, such as the potential impact on registrars operating in >> countries with strict privacy laws if those countries were to begin >> enforcing those laws (in the gTLD space). There was the concern that >> new WHOIS-related issues will arise that will require consideration >> notwithstanding the current WHOIS "stalemate", such as issues related to >> IDNs, greater privacy enforcement by countries, etc..., that may warrant >> further study. >> >> I described the format and content of the summary "Report on Public >> Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS" of Feb. 25, 2008. Note in >> particular that the study suggestions are grouped into seven topic >> areas. >> >> 1. WHOIS misuse >> 2. Compliance with data protection laws and registrar accreditation >> agreements 3. Availability of privacy services 4. Demand and motivation >> for use of privacy services 5. Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime >> and abuse 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute >> resolution requests 7. WHOIS data accuracy >> >> These seven areas can be thought of as topical questions for further >> study. If the consensus of the group is to proceed to identify specific >> areas for further study (meaning rather than recommending that studies >> not be conducted), the group might find it useful to decide first which >> of these groupings address questions you think having data about would >> inform the debate (see Key Deliverables below). >> >> There was one question about whether a budget exists to conduct studies. >> >> I responded that there is no pre-set budget but there is a place >> holder in the budget that the policy development group has submitted, >> and there is the understanding and expectation that the Council may >> request studies that ICANN would engage in. Also, I noted that there is >> a gating process -- the Council has specifically noted in its >> resolutions that it would first identify certain studies that it thought >> should then be priced out, and then, after those estimates are provided, >> make any specific requests with those estimates in mind. We also note >> that costs for various studies could vary significantly based on size, >> scope, complexity, etc. >> >> 2. Key deliverables >> >> - Everyone will read the summary "Report on Public Suggestions on >> Further Studies of WHOIS" - link provided by Glen and below >> >> - Everyone will consider the threshold question of whether WHOIS should >> be studied further -- whether any studies of WHOIS would make a >> meaningful impact. We will discuss this further on the next call. >> >> - Everyone will review the suggestions with an eye to whether/or which >> proposed studies would rise to your short favorites list -- or those you >> think should not be done. We did not discuss this on the call, but if >> the group would like to email these to me ahead of time, say by Friday, >> I could total up the results of this initial view for the call. >> >> Again, as I suggested on the call, to approach the question of which of >> 25 suggestions you might support, you may find it useful to first >> consider which of the groupings address questions you think that having >> data about would inform the debate. Once you have identified which >> questions you want to answer, then you could focus on only those >> particular groupings and consider which study approach (or combination >> of approaches) will best answer your questions. In some cases we have >> indicated that the different study proposals answer slightly different >> questions. In some cases we indicate that some of the approaches are >> likely to give better data, or that some of the approaches are likely to >> be less expensive. When you think about the fundamental questions asked >> by each grouping, you may find it more useful to consider the questions >> asked by each grouping as follows: >> >> >> 1. How big is the WHOIS misuse problem that may need to be solved? >> >> 2. Is there a non-compliance with data protection laws problem >> that needs to be solved? >> >> 3. Are there already market-driven solutions available? >> >> 4. Is there demand for market-driven solutions, and are they being >> >> used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes? >> >> 5. Do WHOIS data protections lead to abuse and misuse? >> >> 6. Are provisions for providing protected WHOIS data to law >> enforcement for investigation of crime and abuse effective? >> >> 7. Is WHOIS data accurate? >> >> - Staff will check on the status of an earlier study on the economics of >> the DNS that we understand to have been approved by the ICANN Board but >> not completed to-date. >> >> - Recruit ISP representative -- in process >> >> 3. Next steps >> >> - Next call Tuesday April 15 (a yucky day in the US, I note) >> - See tasks listed in "key deliverables" above. >> - Email with any questions. >> >> Also, please feel free to correct or add to my summary. >> >> Thanks, Liz >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >> ------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Results of ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey
by Richard Jimmerson April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) and the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) worked together to conduct a survey to capture IPv6 penetration data in the ARIN region. The survey took place in March of 2008 and an analysis of the results was presented by kc claffy of CAIDA during the ARIN XXI meeting in Denver, Colorado, last week. You can find the link to this presentation on the top-right corner of ARIN's IPv6 wiki at: http://www.getipv6.info We encourage community members to post IPv6 experiences, knowledge and resources on the ARIN IPv6 wiki. Also, be sure to check back there soon for data from the 8 April ARIN IPv6 Main Event, where participants connected to an IPv6-only network. Regards, Richard Jimmerson Chief Information Officer American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 0