WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
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
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/ ------
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@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@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 .icann.org
Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@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
Brendler, Beau wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with the registrar constituency. I'm speaking as an individual that owns domains. Feel free to pick up the torch, but make sure you look around the room - the faces have not changed in the least. And let me know when I can start enjoying the rights and privileges that Canadian law afford me as it relates to keeping my personal information private when registering a domain name. /ross
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. -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:19 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? Brendler, Beau wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with the registrar constituency. I'm speaking as an individual that owns domains. Feel free to pick up the torch, but make sure you look around the room - the faces have not changed in the least. And let me know when I can start enjoying the rights and privileges that Canadian law afford me as it relates to keeping my personal information private when registering a domain name. /ross ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@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
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
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@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@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@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/ ------
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.
I guess I fit into this category. A little over a year ago I had nothing to do with ICANN. Thanks to Jacob's initiative, a better (but far from complete) understanding of the issues, and a knowledgeable and generally welcoming bunch of colleagues, I'm in a little deeper now. :-) And while my ALS's membership is reasonably technically inclined, I'd say that the proportion of them that own domains is definitely a minority (though higher than the general public). We have not done an extensive survey of our ALS's members but the issue has come up at the executive/board level and some informal user group discussions. Generally I have heard agreement with what Beau stated as the Webwatch position:
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.
To be more specific, WHOIS accuracy is a non-issue -- it must exist -- what is at issue is the level of public access to that accurate informaion. I would suggest that any domain owned by a government agency or for-profit corporation must be public (just as corporate registration information is already public). Non-profits and individuals should be able to enable some kind of privacy while allowing appropriate legitimate access (ie, I would not want the above scenario to give said Burmese citizens the ability to engage in personal libel, or publishing secrets of others, with impunity). To extend this to the "intended" purpose of TLDs, I could live with all of .com, .int and .gov being required to be public, while .org could allow surrogates under proper circumstances. CCTLDs that use .com. or .org. subdomains an easily make similar distinctions. I agree that study at a policy level is pointless -- the facts and opinions on all sides are well known and it's time for a political decision that takes a stand with the given information. The only required further study would IMO be regarding the business and mechanical implementation of the kinds of proxy / escrow / whatever models are required to allow a balance of privacy and accountability. Even unlisted telephone numbers are on record at the telco and are accessible under certain well-defined legal circumstances. There are other non-Internet examples -- such as access to auto license-plate registration information -- that indicate reasonable societal compromises between privacy and accountability. We're not the first ones with this dilemma. - Evan
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.
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@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@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
Ross, as a registrar representative in the GNSO Council, you previously fielded a motion that all contractual provisions regarding WHOIS be eliminated, on the basis that a consensus WHOIS policy has not been achieved to date. May we ask what position the registrars constituency is now taking vis-a-vis WHOIS in the current negotiations dealing with revisions to the RAA? Thanks, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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.
This is basically CAUCE's position, too. And I agree with Wendy's point that it's essentially a political issue. If the ALAC represents small scale registrants, then a totally anonymous WHOIS is ideal, since it would relieve us of much of the tedious need to deal with the consequences of what we do with our domains. But if the ALAC represents Internet users, a large fraction, probably the majority, of domains with which we have contact are of unknown reliability and the more we know, the better choices we can make, and good WHOIS info is an important tool. 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, and because of chronic confusion between pseudonymous and anonymous speech. For individual privacy, the thin privacy proxies offered by Tucows and other registrars seem about right, enough to keep spammers and nosy neighbors away. For the Burmese freedom fighters, the whole issue of WHOIS is silly. By itself a domain is useless -- for your domain to be useful you need web hosting, mail, DNS, and so forth, all of which have to be provided by someone who either knows who you are and you trust not to rat you out, or has some sort of one-way drop so you can contact them even though they can't find you. Whatever it is, if it's good enough to set up DNS and a web site, it's good enough to buy a domain, too. So as it stands, I can't say I'm particularly upset by yet more delay, because at this point I haven't seen any WHOIS proposal that wouldn't be uniformly worse than what we have now, obfuscating info from people with a reasonable need for it, not making the "real" info behind the obfuscation any more reliable than it is now, and not providing any better security for the few people who really need their info to be private. R's, John
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
participants (8)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
John Levine -
Ross Rader -
Thompson, Darlene -
Wendy Seltzer