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@tucows.com> Sent: Apr 15, 2008 11:38 AM To: Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@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@GNSO.ICANN.ORG'; gnso-whois-study@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@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@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-whois-study@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... 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@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827