August 2011 - Rt4-whois - lists.icann.org

Comments re: chapters
by Kim G. von Arx (Fax) Aug. 31, 2011

Aug. 31, 2011

Dear All: I am not sure if I can make the call tomorrow, but I will certainly try my best to participate. In anticipation of the call, please find below my general comments on the chapters. 1. Peter I really enjoyed reading your chapter and I think you did an excellent job writing it. There are two concerns that I have: (a) I feel that the chapter lacks some balance between the different factions privacy vs. full disclosure. I am cognizant of the fact that one side certainly is more vocal than the other, however, I do believe that we need to take extra care to make sure that all the views are equally represented in the discussion. Half way through the chapter, I did get the feeling that it was arguing much more strongly in favour of full disclosure and for commercial and law enforcement interests. While I believe that many of the arguments raised are very valid, I do believe it is important to provide a balanced view on all of the positions that were brought to us. (b) While I think the recommendations and conclusions are well argued and thought out, I am somewhat concerned by the scope of the recommendations. I do believe that there is an opportunity for the WHOIS policy to be amended to reflect the needs of all the stakeholders and not just to regulate the proxy services. Indeed, in the grand scheme of things, the former would be easier to implement, maintain, and regulate then the latter - I think. Again, Peter, thank you very much for all the work you did on this. I can only imagine how much time you spent on drafting this and I think you did an excellent job. 2. Kathy Again, thank you very much for the work and I think you did a bang on job in outlining our approach and methodology. I don't really have any comments with respect to your chapter as it was simply a "pulling together" of the facts, dates, and quotes. This is not to say that it did not take much effort on your part, it is merely meant to say that there is really nothing for me to comment and/or argue about considering that all of the things you mentioned are factual. 3. Sharon My thanks to you too for all the work you put into this. I know how busy you are in trying to keep our world a saver place for all of us. I actually spent most time on your parts and re-read them a few times to figure out whether I think any of the comments warrant an amendment to our definition. After a lengthy debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I do not believe that our definitions need any amendments. I feel that we found a fairly good balance in our approach to the terms and any amendments to the definitions of those terms would slant the balance into one or the other direction. At this stage, I believe that our definitions have found the best possible balance for all stakeholders concerned. 4. Emily I am still working through yours. Kim

1 0

Agenda - Next call
by Alice Jansen Aug. 31, 2011

Aug. 31, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed the agenda of your next call scheduled for this upcoming Thursday at 22:00 UTC. 1. Roll-call, apologies & agenda 2. Adopt preliminary report (17 August) 3. Update on consumer research (Lynn) 4. Further discussion on the gap analysis (Peter, James, all) 5. Staff response to compliance questions (Michele) 6. Update on progress from other sections, and setting deadlines (Sharon, Lynn, Kathy/James, Emily) 7. Keeping track of recommendations 8. Expectations for MdR (All) 9. A.O.B Kindly note that this agenda is also available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+19+-+1+September+2011<https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+18+-+17+August+2011> Thanks, Very best regards Alice

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Consumer Trust key concepts
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Aug. 31, 2011

Aug. 31, 2011

1 0

Consumer Trust key concepts
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

1 0

Help required - NOW EVEN EASIER!!
by LEMON, Sharon Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Hello Everyone, Last week I sent out my part of the report - definitions for comment and assistance. Response was limited ;-), but I still need your help. So - to make it even easier I have subdivided the work into three and you only need to look at the one which relates to the subgroup you were in. I would like you to look at the definition, the feedback received and let me know if you think we should change it in light of that feedback. The first document is the key for those who fedback, the second the defination and comments and the third the longer version, should you be interested. I have now incorporated the LE feedback from both Peter and I and summarised the comments, rather than just listed them. This will only take minutes PROMISE - and I would really like to feedback at our next conference call and I am off next week - so you have until Monday 15th!. So - Producers and Maintainers - James, Susan and Wilfried Applicable Laws -Kim, Omar, Michael, Lynn Law Enforcement - Kim, Lutz, Peter. Here's hoping, Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

10 13

Oops! Re: Report input - privacy/proxy 'gaps' [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by kathy＠kathykleiman.com Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

Sorry -- my fingers hit enter before I finished. Here's the full message :-)! Hi All, I would like to greatly thank Peter for his draft (I now know how hard these are to do)! Now that I have done my "deep dive" into the comments, I think that there are some additional comments that can be cited to round out the discussion of this important section. Also, following on Peter's discussion of ICANN's Whois Misuse study (data misused from Whois), I have added discussion of and references to the 3 studies of Whois Privacy and Proxy Services that the GNSO approved in April and June, and commissioned in response to requests for data from the GAC (and badly wanted by the GNSO too!): -- Whois Proxy/Privacy Relay and Reveal Study -- Whois Proxy/Privacy Abuse Study -- Whois Registrant Identification Study (a foundation for the other studies). (Note: ICANN will spend over $400,000 on these important studies) I also incorporated some of James' comments into the text, with which I share great agreement. **Attached please find an edited version of Peter's section.** Thanks Peter! Best, Kathy > > > > >> Hello again all, >> >> Attached is a revised draft to fill out some of the more obvious gaps >> (including the argument around proxy services, and the references to >> ICANNâs consensus procedure), and to address some of the points raised >> by James. >> >> There is clearly still more work to be done to balance the argument in >> places, and to incorporate diverse/alternate viewpoints, but I hope this >> revised version addresses some of the gaps and questions about the >> positions. >> >> Iâve also inserted responses to Jamesâ comments below, and would be >> welcome further comments on how to take this issue forward. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] >> Sent: Saturday, 20 August 2011 10:03 AM >> To: Emily Taylor >> Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org; Nettlefold, Peter >> Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Report input - privacy/proxy 'gaps' >> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >> >> Peter, Emily, and Team: >> >> Thanks for getting this thread started. I have numerous comments on >> this >> chapter, and have organized them in to two categories (below). I look >> forward to a longer discussion of this (and other) chapters between now >> and our meeting in MdR. >> >> Thanks-- >> >> J. >> >> >> >> Concerns with the Approach: >> * This chapter represents an unbalanced perspective of the >> Privacy/Proxy >> issue. It emphasizes the views of governments, law enforcement, and >> others opposed to P&P services, while marginalizing the positions of >> those >> supporting, offering, or using these services. >> I agree that more balance is needed. I simply did not have time to build >> in more viewpoints in the first draft. >> >> * It proceeds from the default LE & Gov't position that some >> registrants, >> under certain conditions, have legitimate needs for privacy. While the >> civil tradition in most democracies (and on the Internet) is that >> privacy >> is a right enjoyed by everyone unless/until their conduct abuses this. >> I donât believe that there is a default LE and government position as >> such. Both of Jamesâ formulations suggest that privacy is important >> and >> should be acknowledged. The draft chapter also acknowledges this. >> However, >> it is also important to acknowledge that choosing to participate in >> certain public processes often requires a degree of public disclosure >> and >> visibility. >> >> * The ICANN Policy that resolves conflicts between WHOIS requirements >> and >> local law is a protection for Registries and Registrars---not for >> Registrants. For Registrants, their only option to enhanced privacy >> protection (beyond that required by their local laws) is to engage a P&P >> service. >> The ICANN consensus procedure is to resolve conflicts with national >> privacy laws. These laws protect peopleâs privacy, including >> registrants. I agree that privacy services may offer additional comfort, >> and the draft chapter recommends extending privacy protections beyond >> the >> consensus procedure, through the use of regulated privacy services. >> >> * It is not appropriate to cite a 2009 study by ICANN without noting >> that >> more specific studies have been approved by the Board (at Singapore) and >> may or may not be completed in time for their findings to be referenced >> by >> this report. >> I agree, and expect that the ongoing studies could be acknowledged >> either >> here or elsewhere in the report. However, it seems that no results from >> these studies will be available to inform our work. Plans for future >> studies do not diminish the relevance of the 2009 study. >> >> * It is not appropriate to cite a study by Knujon, or any other >> commercially-interested third-party that is engaged in the promotion of >> their products & services. >> I disagree. Many if not all respondents to our discussion paper have >> vested interests, and I expect that we will be happy to quote their >> views >> (I certainly have in the draft). If there are problems with the >> methodology or other questions about a particular study, or a need to >> otherwise caveat our references to a third-party study, then that is a >> different matter and I would entirely agree. But I can see no reason to >> dismiss a study out of hand because of a bias against a particular >> stakeholder. >> >> * The quotes by Law Enforcement do not include those who have neutral >> or >> uncritical views of P&P services, or those in LE who frequently and >> publicly make the distinction between the "good" or "model" P&P >> operators, >> versus the "bad actors." >> I agree that more balance could always be included. >> >> * Proxy registrations do not "hide" or "shield" registrant contact >> data. >> The proxy service IS the registrant. Law Enforcement & Gov'ts and other >> interested parties are, in effect, demanding disclosure of the business >> relationship between the Proxy provider and its customer(s). >> I agree (with the first two sentences). However, several respondents to >> the discussion paper suggested that a distinction between the >> âproxy-as-registrantâ and the âunderlying/licensed-registrantâ >> was >> being gamed and exploited. I agree that ICANN canât âbanâ proxy >> services, and accept that it canât be expected to even know about >> every >> side agreement with third parties. >> >> I think the confusion arises by ICANN trying to acknowledge âproxy >> servicesâ in the first place. Once someone becomes a registrant, then >> they should accept all the rights and responsibilities that come with >> that. If they have an agreement with another party for some reason, then >> this should have no effect on their rights and responsibilities as a >> registrant from ICANNâs perspective. This is what I was trying to >> suggest â i.e. similar to Nominetâs approach, that ICANN simply not >> acknowledge them as anything other than the actual registrant, and hence >> remove the gaming and legal uncertainty that arises from that >> recognition. >> >> With this in mind, Iâve redrafted some text and recommendations in the >> revised chapter, as Jamesâ points have highlighted ways to improve the >> wording. >> >> >> Concerns with the Recommendations: >> >> * Overall: Many of these recommendations exceed "Policy Review" and >> fall >> in to the realm of "Policy Recommendation." >> >> * Rec #1: Because it is not a regulator, ICANN cannot prohibit services >> offered by firms with which it does not have a contract. And it cannot >> compel business to enter in to contracts unless there is a clear >> incentive >> for them to do so. >> >> * Rec #2: ICANN could offer a voluntary accreditation program for P&P >> providers. But it would by necessity be a voluntary program, so there >> should be clear benefits for P&P providers to gain ICANN accreditation, >> and clear benefits for registrars to use accredited P&P services. >> >> * Rec #3: Accredited Registrars could use Accredited P&P Providers, >> presuming they were -aware- when a non-accredited service was being >> used. >> For example, if I contact my lawyer and ask him to register a domain >> name >> on my behalf, I do not expect the registrar to know that the lawyer is >> functioning as a Proxy for me in this example. >> >> * Rec #4: It is not within ICANN's mission to examine how a domain name >> is used. Domain names are not synonymous with websites. Registrars are >> often, but not necessarily, the web content hosts for the names they >> manage. As an organization, ICANN is and must remain "content neutral." >> >> * Rec #5 - #7: These recommendations seem to ouline the charter of a >> desired Policy Development Process (PDP), which is beyond the remit of >> this review team. >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Report input - privacy/proxy 'gaps' >> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >> From: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> >> Date: Wed, August 17, 2011 6:17 am >> To: "Nettlefold, Peter" >> <Peter.Nettlefold(a)dbcde.gov.au<http://Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>> >> Cc: "rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" >> <rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> >> >> Dear Peter, >> >> Many thanks for your work on this draft. I really like the way that you >> have based your commentary on a bottom-up analysis of what the comments >> said. It shows that we have been listening to, and carefully analysing >> the inputs that people have taken the trouble to give us. >> >> I'm sure we'll be discussing it on today's call, and it's a pity that >> the >> scheduling prevents you joining us. I hope we will be able to have you >> on >> our next call after this one, and we'll ensure that we have a good turn >> out. >> >> My question in reading the proxy/privacy section is - apart from NCUC >> which you referenced - did we have contrary views. We have a lot of >> references from law enforcement and IP constituency, but nothing at all >> from registry/registrars or NCUC apart from that one quote. I'm keen to >> ensure that we present a balanced view of the inputs received, because >> it >> will give a range of views. >> >> All - please can we look out our notes of our face-to-face meetings. I >> for one took away a strong message from our call with the IPC that they >> had *good* experiences of data release from a number of the larger >> providers, and (while in a perfect world they may not want proxy/privacy >> services) were able to live with them if they could have a predictable >> outcome. This is well captured in one of the recommendations, but >> doesn't >> quite come through in the supporting text yet. >> >> For the more radical recommendations - I'm not sure that I heard them >> being asked for, even by the communities that you would expect to >> support >> them, and therefore we need much more argumentation in the text to >> justify >> some of the recommendations (if, indeed, the team can reach consensus on >> them). >> >> Thank you again for a thorough and thoughtful piece of work Peter. It >> provides us with an excellent first draft on which to focus our >> discussions. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Emily >> >> Kind regards >> >> Emily >> >> On 17 August 2011 10:16, Mikhail Yakushev >> <m.yakushev(a)corp.mail.ru<mailto:m.yakushev@corp.mail.ru>> wrote: >> Dear Peter, colleagues, >> I have carefully reviewed Peterâs draft and mostly agree with the >> provided analysis. I also would mostly agree with the suggested >> recommendations â but I think we need to discuss each of them >> separately >> to achieve the highest possible level of consensus within our team. >> Kind regards, >> Michael >> >> From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> >> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>] >> On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter >> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:48 AM >> To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> >> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Report input - privacy/proxy 'gaps' >> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >> >> Hello all, >> >> Attached is the first section of the draft âgapsâ chapter, for >> review >> and comment. >> >> As youâll see, this section covers accessibility and privacy issues, >> and >> it still has some gaps. >> >> Iâve also drafted and included some recommendations on this issue, >> building on the public and law enforcement input and our own >> discussions. >> I hope these are helpful. >> >> As youâll see, Iâve drawn a distinction between proxy and privacy >> services in the draft chapter, and this will need some further work (but >> I >> didnât want to delay getting this out to you any further while I >> worked >> on this). Iâve tried to unpack this distinction in the draft chapter, >> but also wanted to also explain my thinking to you. >> >> The main challenge identified by responses to our consultation >> processes, >> and in our own discussions, is to find a way to balance any legitimate >> privacy concerns with the interests of other stakeholders. The position >> Iâve put forward in the draft chapter is that this can be achieved >> through the regulated use of privacy services (i.e. services that make >> the >> identity of the registrant known, but limit availability to other >> personal >> data â at least in the first instance). Proxy services, which replace >> the name of the registrant with that of another entity, are quite >> different in nature, and I think that these services raise serious >> questions about ICANNâs ability to enforce its AoC obligations. >> >> I have drafted the chapter with this distinction in mind, although some >> parts of the argument need a bit more work. >> >> Iâm aiming to circulate the next section of the draft chapter - on >> accuracy - in a day or two, and the section on compliance shortly after >> that. >> >> Unfortunately the next call is now scheduled for 1am my time, so I >> wonât >> be attending. >> >> I look forward to discussing this further as we work towards our Marina >> del Ray meeting. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient >> only >> and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any >> review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or >> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or >> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result >> in >> severe penalties. >> >> If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security >> Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital >> Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and >> delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. >> >> Please consider the environment before printing this email. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> [cid:~WRD259.jpg] >> >> >> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK >> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 â¢ m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 >> emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> >> >> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk> >> >> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and >> Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. >> >> ________________________________ >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient >> only >> and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any >> review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or >> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or >> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result >> in >> severe penalties. >> >> >> If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security >> Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital >> Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and >> delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. >> >> >> Please consider the environment before printing this email. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> > >

1 0

Follow-up to ATRT - Webinar
by Kathy Kleiman Aug. 26, 2011

Aug. 26, 2011

Hi All, This may be of interest. ICANN is providing a webinar on Wednesday to discuss its follow-up to the recommendations of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. Here's the link to the details. Best, Kathy http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25aug11-en.htm Accountability & Transparency -- "ATRT" Activities Webinar -- Update 31 August, 2011 14:00 -- 15:30 UTC <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Accountability+%26…> Are you wondering how ICANN is progressing on its commitments to improve transparency and accountability, and how ATRT improvements will help you? Do you have an opinion to share on the changes made to date by ICANN's Board of Directors, Governmental Advisory Committee, Nominating Committee, and Staff? If so, join the ATRT Activities Webinar on *Wednesday, 31 August 2011 from 14:00 -- 15:30 UTC <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Accountability+%26…>*. The webinar is open to all, and will be conducted in English. If participants find it useful, more sessions will be scheduled. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. No RSVPs are needed. Here's how to connect: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25aug11-en.htm --

1 0

[OT] Historic day in Brazil?
by Omar Kaminski Aug. 25, 2011

Aug. 25, 2011

I just arrived from a seminar in Brasilia, at the House of the Representatives. We discussed (again) the cibercrime bill - considered too complex and vague. This discussion is taking years, but in the very same day another bill was proposed, the so called "Marco Civil da Internet" - to regularize and to propose civil (ciber)rights. We do understand we first need a bill to generate and to ensure some new generation rights, not to restrict them or inhibit net neutrality, innovation, culture and freedom in general. And tonight in Sao Paulo, Lawrence Lessig, Gilberto Gil and others talked about free culture, Creative Commons, etc in a free event. I think (and I hope) a revolution was started and it is growing. Tired but happy regards, Omar

2 1

[OT] News from Brazil, some impacts on Whois are possible
by Omar Kaminski Aug. 25, 2011

Aug. 25, 2011

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&… http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2… "The text examined was the substitute of the Committee of the Consumer Protection Bill 979/07, deputy Chico Alencar (RJ-PSOL). It also stipulates that companies report on their web site addresses for electronic mail and for the care of consumer complaints, beyond the numbers from the National Register of Legal Entities (CNPJ) and state registration". Passed today on House of Representatives. Omar

1 0

Status of contract for WHOIS Consumer Trust research
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Aug. 23, 2011

Aug. 23, 2011

1 0