On Aug 28, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Danny Younger wrote:

I'm part of the contingent that believes that further WHOIS studies are a total waste of time.

We don't need further studies to tell us that which is self- evident. We're not idiots. We all can see what is going on. We, in this ICANN community, are the experts on this topic and certainly don't need to pay others to investigate that which is glaringly obvious.

What we have here is nothing more than a stalling tactic.

Largely spearheaded by the United States Government. Much community time has been wasted on this subject and I agree with Danny that the current course of action will do very little to resolve the issue to anyone's satisfaction - save those interests that are comfortable with the status quo. If anything should be studied, it should focus on determining the degree to which current registrants (and no one else) is comfortable with the current whois disclosure policies. It may well be that this issue is not important to the registrant community and therefore, the status quo could be much more acceptable than we might think. However, I don't believe this is the case. I think it would be very helpful for the At-large community to take a proactive stance on this issue instead of dancing to the USG and intellectual property community drums. A proposal which balanced the information privacy requirements of individual registrants with the disclosure needs of consumer protection interests *might* have a chance of being ratified as policy. If the GNSO continues along its current track, I predict we will be stuck with the status quo for another five years, while the rest of the world implements more balanced privacy practices (i.e. the new Canadian whois policy went into effect earlier this year, and contrary to popular propaganda, the intellectual property world did *not* come to an end). As a slight aside, a question to those that advocate study of this issue - what progress has been made over the last year to achieve the better understanding of the issues since the Council determined that "more studies" was the way to go. /ross

On Aug 28, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:

This is the process the community is following now. We can work with it and try to advise and/or seek change accordingly, or stand to one side and repeat the same bromides over and over. The ALAC should say something -- even if it's a rehash of similar sentiments to yours, Ross. However, I believe those sentiments are out of touch with reality as far as the broad user community is concerned. They may not be out of touch with the realities of what registrars want.

Are you saying that I'm speaking for registrars on this? Out of touch or not, I think that I should be free to participate in ICANN as I choose without my motives being impugned every time that I seek to express myself. To the specific topic, I work as part of the user community every day. I am a user myself, and my work gives me the opportunity to work directly with other users hour-to-hour. One of the questions that I hear most, as it relates to Whois, is "tell me again why I have to publish my personal information in this online directory?". The GNSO is sitting on its hands with these studies, and in the meantime, users continue to be confused by the status quo, ripped off by those purporting to sell privacy and generally getting the short shrift by everyone purporting to protect their interests. And finally, I'm tired of your ad hominem arguments as it relates to my employ. Get specific or drop it - but please, stop beating around the bush. /r

On Aug 28, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:

Actually, I thought I was being pretty direct

Anything but. You've adopted a philosophical position that anyone that works for a company that sells something to users can't participate in the At-large, especially if that company is associated with ICANN. Thing is, I have a life. And in that life, I'm a user. I'm not representing anyone's views but my own, and I think that my track record of service to the NA-RALO as one of its reps speaks for itself. If there are specific allegations about specific instances where I've betrayed this trust, then out with it - otherwise leave it alone. You're wasting everyone's time otherwise.

Maybe that's what the user community should say.

They are. Its a shame no one cares to listen. /r

I found Ross's suggestion to be reasonable: "A proposal which balanced the information privacy requirements of individual registrants with the disclosure needs of consumer protection interests *might* have a chance of being ratified as policy." The registrar constituency earlier made a noble stab at solving the problem through their OPoC proposal (and we should thank Ross for all his hard work on that effort). I would now like to see the ALAC float a proposal of their own. All the talk in the world means nothing if we are unwilling to lay down a formal proposal for GNSO consideration. ... but of course that means an ALAC WG filled with members committed to getting a piece of policy work accomplished; it means having a strong chair, agreed-upon terms of reference, a set schedule, regular meetings, individual work requirements, shared goals and active participation from a very large number of ALSs and individuals worldwide. I'm willing to take on the project. Is anyone else willing to work on this? --- On Thu, 8/28/08, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:

From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached To: "Ross Rader" <ross@hover.com> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 10:36 AM This is the process the community is following now. We can work with it and try to advise and/or seek change accordingly, or stand to one side and repeat the same bromides over and over. The ALAC should say something -- even if it's a rehash of similar sentiments to yours, Ross. However, I believe those sentiments are out of touch with reality as far as the broad user community is concerned. They may not be out of touch with the realities of what registrars want.

Beau Brendler

-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:08 AM Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached

On Aug 28, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Danny Younger wrote:

...

I'm part of the contingent that believes that further WHOIS studies are a total waste of time.

We don't need further studies to tell us that which is self- evident. We're not idiots. We all can see what is going on. We, in this ICANN community, are the experts on this topic and certainly don't need to pay others to investigate that which is glaringly obvious.

What we have here is nothing more than a stalling tactic.

Largely spearheaded by the United States Government.

Much community time has been wasted on this subject and I agree with Danny that the current course of action will do very little to resolve the issue to anyone's satisfaction - save those interests that are comfortable with the status quo.

If anything should be studied, it should focus on determining the degree to which current registrants (and no one else) is comfortable with the current whois disclosure policies. It may well be that this issue is not important to the registrant community and therefore, the status quo could be much more acceptable than we might think.

However, I don't believe this is the case. I think it would be very helpful for the At-large community to take a proactive stance on this issue instead of dancing to the USG and intellectual property community drums. A proposal which balanced the information privacy requirements of individual registrants with the disclosure needs of consumer protection interests *might* have a chance of being ratified as policy.

If the GNSO continues along its current track, I predict we will be stuck with the status quo for another five years, while the rest of the world implements more balanced privacy practices (i.e. the new Canadian whois policy went into effect earlier this year, and contrary to popular propaganda, the intellectual property world did *not* come to an end).

As a slight aside, a question to those that advocate study of this issue - what progress has been made over the last year to achieve the better understanding of the issues since the Council determined that "more studies" was the way to go.

/ross

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

*** Scanned

**************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED

**************************************************************************** ********

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Danny, this is very well-argued. My point is: at the moment, within the whois hypothesis paper, every hypothesis that's listed that seems to remotely pertain to user and consumer interests, has been submitted by the GAC. ALAC hasn't said anything formal. It just seems weird to me, no matter how tired everyone is by the topic, that we should let a current document progress through the system letting the GAC represent the user community without the ALAC saying anything. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:53 AM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached Like Beau, I was part of this group as well, and also did not participate in the hypothesis phase -- but for a different reason. Seven years ago I was part of a GNSO working group that spent over a full year working on a comprehensive WHOIS survey; over 3000 respondents and an 88-page final report... and guess what... almost nobody read the report. Similarly, the SSAC recently released an accuracy study of 4444 registrations (cited in SAC 033: Domain Name Registration Information and Directory Services) and you can probably guess how many GAC members have read that particular report -- probably none. Bottom line. I'm part of the contingent that believes that further WHOIS studies are a total waste of time. We don't need further studies to tell us that which is self-evident. We're not idiots. We all can see what is going on. We, in this ICANN community, are the experts on this topic and certainly don't need to pay others to investigate that which is glaringly obvious. What we have here is nothing more than a stalling tactic. When a group wants to prevent a change in policy it tries to push initiatives back to a committee, it tries to push for studies, for surveys, for any course of action that has the effect of derailing or sidelining the policy development process... and they already know that either no one is going to read these studies or surveys or that they will always be able to spin any results with which they disagree anyway. My view on WHOIS: When most of you go to register your motor vehicle you have two registration choices, either a commercial vehicle registration or a non-commercial vehicle registration. In both cases the data is always readily available to law enforcement agencies. If you select the commercial registration you will be required to display accurate contact information on the body of your vehicle: Joe's Trucking Inc. 123 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10018 If you select the non-commercial option no such display is mandated. This system balances privacy with the need to know how to contact those engaged in commercial endeavors. I believe in requiring anyone engaged in commerce on the internet to display their contact details; I also believe that those not engaged in commercial transactions should be afforded a modicum of privacy (as long as law enforcement always has ready access to contact details if and when required and as permitted under law). The motion that this Hypothesis Group will field to the Council reads as follows: * Council representatives are asked to forward the report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to prepare cost estimates to the Council in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008. I would advise that the ALAC liaison recommend that no further studies be pursued (as it's a total waste of time) and that instead each GNSO constituency be required to submit a WHOIS proposal for evaluation that in some fashion attends to the privacy concerns that have been expressed by the user community. Out of the six competing constituency proposals we will doubtless find one that has the potential to be tweaked to everyone's satisfaction. --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:

From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached To: "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "whois-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <whois-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 11:22 AM Since I was a part of this group (contributing to its earlier incarnation, but not to the "hypotheses" phase that began June 25 or so), I'd like to volunteer to help facilitate discussion and comment within ALAC. Some of the GAC hypotheses mirror what I believe are user community concerns/perceptions of WHOIS.

I think the ALAC should review the whole document, but at minimum focus on what the GAC has put forward. Even if the ALAC can't agree, the user community's voice needs to be heard on this issue.

For additional perspective I have attached the final version (in its entirety, no longer preliminary) of the New York state study we conducted that I presented to the ALAC in Paris, including the questions on WHOIS and other ICANN issues (grouped towards the end). The study is statistically significant for New York state only, but I believe the results should encourage us to look beyond the traditional "privacy vs. law enforcement" deadlock.

Please do not distribute any of this data outside these groups, as we are planning to release it to the press as part of an anti-fraud campaign in Sept., Oct. and November.

BB

-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:02 AM To: whois-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] FW: Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached

Dear Working Group Members and At-Large Community Members:

Attached please find the report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group to the GNSO Council as requested by the Council in its resolution of 26 June 2008.

--

Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

*** Scanned

********************************************************************** ****** ******** SCANNED

********************************************************************** ****** ********------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

*** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********