NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -- Converted from text/plain format --> I would be very interested in having a presentation on previous Whois Reviews, their findings, outcomes, learning points etc., Sharon Sharon Lemon OBE. Deputy Director e-Crime, Crime Techniques, Prevention and Alerts | Serious Organised Crime Agency | PO BOX 8000 | London | SE11 5EN | Tel: +44 (0)20 7238 8583 | Mobile: +44 (0)7768 290902 | Email: sharon.lemon@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Get Safe Online Week 2010 runs from 15th-19th November. Visit the website to learn more or follow us on twitter @GetSafeOnline Get Safe Online is a joint initiative between the Government, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and public and private sector sponsors from the worlds of technology, communication, retail and finance to raise awareness of internet security, and help individuals and smaller businesses in the UK to use the internet confidently and safely. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: 12 November 2010 19:32 To: Kim G. von Arx Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps Kim, I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions". As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes. Regards, Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this raises three major problems:
1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further information from our stakeholders.
2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services.
3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible.
Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community
only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of this new TLD initiative.
Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote:
Hi Kim,
I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input.
However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other.
As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like).
In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS.
Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I
believe we need a different approach for a way forward.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we
had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.
I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep
each broad enough.
In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not.
Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios.
I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Wilfried:
I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Kim, Team!
Kim G. von Arx wrote:
> Hi Emily et al: > > >> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we
invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
> > > I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together.
Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents.
> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will > have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the
presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >> >> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to
propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate
>> >> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > > > I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
OK for me.
>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >> - the Board >> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >> >> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison >> with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? > > > agreed > >> >> Our next call >> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >> >> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective >> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > > > agreed. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > - -- --
Wilfried
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
=0A_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 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. 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@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.