May 2015 - Whois-iag-volunteers

FW: Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc
by Maria Otanes June 15, 2015

June 15, 2015

From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:05 AM To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org> Cc: "jeffrey(a)icann.org" <jeffrey(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc Dear Maria: Thankyou, but I regret that I do not understand this approach. I have explained in some detail why I cannot in any way endorse - even tacitly - this document, as is, or as amended. May I suggest that ICANN staff present a one page summary of the absolutely essential and feasible aspects that you would wish to see recommended by the IAG-WHOIS. Best regards Christopher > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> >> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal >> Date: 7 May 2015 20:19:14 GMT+02:00 >> To: "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org> >> >> Good evening: >> >> I have reviewed the 'Dual Trigger' procedure as proposed by James Gannon, for >> which many thanks. >> >> However as I have explained to the recent conference calls, I see no merit in >> spending time on tweaking the procedure for handling eventual WHOIS conflicts >> with privacy and data protection laws when the underlying ICANN policy is >> fundamentally flawed. >> >> I have proposed to greatly simplify and expedite the matter either by ICANN >> adapting WHOIS to international best practice whereby all Registries and >> Registrars would implement a high level of personal data protection and >> privacy, world wide. Or alternatively, to Reverse the Burden of Proof, >> whereby Registries and Registrars would, as their primary default, implement >> applicable privacy and data protection laws in their respective >> jurisdictions. It would then be up to ICANN to initiate a procedure to >> examine whether, in any particular case, there was a threat to the stability >> and security of the Internet. >> >> The present draft document of some six detailed pages is really not workable >> and contains some serious misconceptions. >> >> -How many Registries and Registrars, world-wide, would be potentially >> affected by this procedure? What would be the consequences in cost and staff >> time for ICANN should they all actually apply for exemption? >> (Into how many languages would the procedure have to be translated before it >> could be realistically implemented by all present and future affected >> Registries and Registrars?) >> >> -ICANN's 'contractual WHOIS obligations' (Section 2.1) are not sacrosanct, >> particularly when they are inconsistent with applicable law. >> >> -the reference to ' anticipated impact on the operational stability ' >> (Section 4.1) is rather tendentious. I am aware of no reason to anticipate >> that privacy and data protection law would have any such impact. On the >> contrary, there are a large number of Registries (principally ccTLDs) which >> do respect applicable law. Did ICANN ever question whether they had any >> negative impact on stability, security or interoperability etc. of the >> Internet? >> >> -The reference in Section 5.2 to "ICANN's forbearance from enforcement of >> full compliance " is likely to be perceived as rather offensive. ICANN is >> not in a position to force Registrars or Registries to choose between ICANN's >> contractual conditions and applicable law. On the contrary, ICANN's Articles >> of Incorporation were drafted to ensure that the opposite would be the case. >> >> More generally, there is an underlying issue of fair competition between >> accredited Registrars in the ICANN gTLD system. Should one accept the >> procedure as proposed, one would be effectively placing certain Registrars at >> a competitive disadvantage (a) to undertake an exorbitant procedure to obtain >> a waiver or exemption from ICANN's contractual conditions and/or (b) to risk >> infringement of applicable law vis-à-vis their Registrants and public >> authorities. >> >> Again, such outcome is contrary to the underlying objectives of ICANN which >> was created in the first place to ensure conditions of fair competition among >> Registrars, world-wide. >> >> In the light of the above, I would recommend that the working group proceed >> no further with the so called 'trigger mechanisms' and start again from a >> more realistic and legally compliant position. >> >> With best regards to you all >> >> Christopher Wilkinson On 26 May 2015, at 16:04, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > We have created a Google docs workspace for the Dual Trigger WHOIS proceeding > proposal. Everyone on this email distribution has access to the document and > has the ability to suggest edits or provide comments. If you have any > questions or run into any problems with the Google doc, please let us know. > Thanks. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iNKGTue_yt93gWzRdg7WkGNjIADZzzCveudYMT-… > c/edit?usp=sharing > > Kind regards, > Maria Otanes > _______________________________________________ > Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list > Whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers

4 3

Dual Trigger Proposal
by James Gannon June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Hi All, In an effort to try and find a common ground, and after recognizing Steve's input and comments on the call last night that his proposal needs not be the exclusive trigger I have tried to string together some draft language on what I am calling a Dual Trigger process. My changes have focused on step one being the trigger step, my changes to the remainder of the process have been minor, a change of 'shall' to 'may' in Section 2 to reflect the change in substance of the trigger mechanism. And the addition of Steve's language to the Consultation period for a public comment period. Steve: I think I have faithfully reproduced your language here please let me know if I changed anything that changes the substance of your proposal. All: I would appreciate comments or input on the proposal. Please turn off tracking changes on formatting under the 'Show Markup' pane if you get spammed with changes related to formatting. As always my battle with Word and its method of dealing with formatting revisions continues! Please treat this as a Zero draft for discussion. James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg

8 17

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call, June 10th
by Maria Otanes May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Hi all, Due to scheduling conflicts, the times suggested in the original Doodle Poll are not available. We have updated the Doodle Poll with times for the following week, June 10th. Please complete the new Doodle Poll with your availability by Monday, June 1st. The available times are: 15:00 UTC 18:30 UTC 23:00 UTC http://doodle.com/dw4qd2radmxgbfyv Best, Maria Otanes From: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call, June 3rd Hello all, The next IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call will be held on Wednesday, June 3rd. Please complete the Doodle Poll below with your preferred time by Wednesday, May 27th. The available times are: 13:00 UTC 18:30 UTC 23:00 UTC Best, Maria Otanes

1 0

Dual Trigger Proposal Google Doc
by Maria Otanes May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Hello all, We have created a Google docs workspace for the Dual Trigger WHOIS proceeding proposal. Everyone on this email distribution has access to the document and has the ability to suggest edits or provide comments. If you have any questions or run into any problems with the Google doc, please let us know. Thanks. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iNKGTue_yt93gWzRdg7WkGNjIADZzzCveudYMT-n 31c/edit?usp=sharing Kind regards, Maria Otanes

1 0

Participation in events
by Ali Adel Ali Ibrahim May 24, 2015

May 24, 2015

Greetings, I am ALI ADEL ALI ALI IBRAHIM , Egypt. Please I would like to ask about whether I can participate in any volunteering opportunities in Europe? Can you help me in that? Please, Don't hesitate to contact me if you need any further information. You are most welcomed ! My regards, ALI ADEL ALI IBRAHIM EGYPT +201141489669 , +201013882265

1 0

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight May 22, 2015

May 22, 2015

Bradley With all due respect I would have to forcefully disagree with you. I and others have outlined why we are supportive of the proposal as outlined previously and our position on this isn’t going to change. Discussing it further is futile. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Silver, Bradley" Date: Friday 22 May 2015 17:02 To: James Gannon, "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal James, all: Thanks for your edits, and thanks to Steve for the proposal introduced on the last call. My apologies for not being able to join the last discussion, but I have been able to review the transcript, and the various viewpoints expressed about the proposals on the table. I’ve also reviewed James’ draft and had the following comments: 1. My understanding of the “alternative” nature of Steve Metalitz’s proposal was that it would be an alternative to - not a replacement of –the existing proceeding as outlined in 1.1 of the Procedure. I see that Section 1.1. has been deleted in James’ draft. I support the inclusion of the proposal Steve submitted, as a means to provide flexibility to the trigger so that the affected registrar does not need to be in “receipt of notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action.” 2. Leading on from that, I don’t think it is useful to include as an alternative the possibility for an opinion from a law firm, even with the additional layers of consultation, for all the reasons which were expressed on the last call, and in prior discussions. Even the language proposed points to a lack of connection with the underlying policy, which requires a demonstration by the registrar that is actually legally prevented from complying, not that it might be. 3. A point that has been made a number of times in prior discussions is the need for a certain level of certainty and specificity as to the nature of the actual (not probable or theoretical) conflict, as part of the trigger mechanism – in keeping with the underlying policy. An opinion from a law firm does not meet that requirement, nor would an opinion or statement from a data authority without enforcement authority, or indeed any statement that comes from a body that is not specific to the registrar in question, and the specific contractual provisions and terms of service, as analyzed against national law of the relevant country. I would suggest further discussion about the proposal presented by Steve, and whether there are any ways to address some of the concerns expressed by others within that framework. Bradley Silver Chief Intellectual Property Counsel |Time Warner Inc. 1 Time Warner Center | New York, NY 10019-8016 P: 212 484 8869 | F: 212 658 9293 From: whois-iag-volunteers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 7:32 AM To: whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Dual Trigger Proposal Hi All, In an effort to try and find a common ground, and after recognizing Steve’s input and comments on the call last night that his proposal needs not be the exclusive trigger I have tried to string together some draft language on what I am calling a Dual Trigger process. My changes have focused on step one being the trigger step, my changes to the remainder of the process have been minor, a change of ‘shall’ to ‘may’ in Section 2 to reflect the change in substance of the trigger mechanism. And the addition of Steve’s language to the Consultation period for a public comment period. Steve: I think I have faithfully reproduced your language here please let me know if I changed anything that changes the substance of your proposal. All: I would appreciate comments or input on the proposal. Please turn off tracking changes on formatting under the ‘Show Markup’ pane if you get spammed with changes related to formatting. As always my battle with Word and its method of dealing with formatting revisions continues! Please treat this as a Zero draft for discussion. James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================

1 0

Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call, June 3rd
by Maria Otanes May 21, 2015

May 21, 2015

Hello all, The next IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call will be held on Wednesday, June 3rd. Please complete the Doodle Poll below with your preferred time by Wednesday, May 27th. The available times are: 13:00 UTC 18:30 UTC 23:00 UTC http://doodle.com/x7g9258vcht4zqxf Best, Maria Otanes

1 0

News from Brazil
by Alyne Andrade May 11, 2015

May 11, 2015

Hello Everybody, In this week, was noticed a site “*nomesbrasil.com <http://nomesbrasil.com>” in Brazil. * *The site show *personal data of Brazilian citizens, such as full name and the registration of individual (number which may indicate the financial situation). This site violated the Marco Civil of Internet and the Consumer Protection Code. The the Ministry of Justice notified the goddady provider to seek information about this domain name. The penalties for irregularities may reach $ 7.2 million. This site (“*nomesbrasil.com <http://nomesbrasil.com>”) *use of domain names for illegal and abusive activities. However, Nomesbrasil.com is hosted in United States by GoDaddy.com, LLC. jQuery was not found on the site. More details can be found in Section server. http://sitemacro.com/www/pt/nomesbrasil.com#server-properties-section http://sitemacro.com/www/pt/nomesbrasil.com http://www.tribunadabahia.com.br/2015/05/06/invasao-de-privacidade-generali… http://www.procon.sc.gov.br/index.php/outros-destaques/766-ministerio-da-ju… The databases with personal information of citizens collected illegally are common and used by criminals for various types of fraud. They can buy things in other names, get some kind of credit. Unfortunately, it is not difficult, being in possession of the data, practicing criminal actions. The person (who had the stolen data) could end up with a debt. But usually criminals have no significant credit without the signature of the person. The Ministry of Justice wants to know who is responsible for this site. How to make sure the IP address? How to protect the personal data of citizens of sites that hide to avoid any legal penalties? Is a cyber war of personal data control? Do you believe that they can find the responsible of this site? Best Regards, Alyne Andrade. President of the IBDI http://www.ibdi.org.br/site/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/ibdi.grupo/?fref=ts

5 5

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call
by James Gannon May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

Hey Maria, Quick question is there any way we could have the audio option turned on for the adobe connect sessions so that we can just connect directly from our computers/devices and not have to dial in? Possibly not in time for today's call but for any future ones? -James -----Original Appointment----- From: Maria Otanes [mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 4:48 PM To: Maria Otanes; whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call When: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 6:30 PM-8:00 PM (UTC) Coordinated Universal Time. Where: See Audio Access below for meeting access information. 18:30-20:00 UTC http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IAG-WHOIS+Conflict… Agenda to follow. ---------------------------------------------------------- Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/iag-whois/ ***Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to dial out to your phone. Enter your phone number, + country, phone number*** If you are unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone or Skype: [Select *6 to mute and unmute on the call] International Dial In Numbers: https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=3515982074&num=1-719-… Participant Passcode: 351 598 2074 << File: ATT00001.txt >>

8 11

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Discussion paper for 1 April 2015 meeting
by arbitrator May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

When comparing the Icann standard registry agreement with the EU privacy data protection regulations, for instance, it is obvious to me that the contractual provisions have no conflict with these regulations. That might explain why no one had invoked the procedure in all these years. I invite my colleagues to consider the issues in the context of the case before us. Sorry for missing the upcoming call. Best, Raymond Raymond HO <arbitrator(a)raymondho.com> wrote: >Thanks, Steven. > > > >I respectfully invite you to consider the goals for the procedure as highlighted in resolution 20051128-05 below: > >“20051128-05 > > The GNSO votes in favour of the following consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION > > In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should: > > Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. > > Create goals for the procedure which include: > > Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; > > Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; > > Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and > > Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. > > As regards the applicable contractual provisions regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, I think it might be helpful to review the standard Registry Agreement https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-agreements-en, in particular, clause 2.18 and Specification 4 reproduced below: > > > > 2.18 Personal Data. Registry Operator shall (i) notify each ICANN-accredited registrar that is a party to the

3 2