[At-Large] {Disarmed} Re: [Fwd: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6]
RJGlass | America@Large
jipshida at gmail.com
Tue Aug 7 12:56:35 EDT 2007
Below are some points which raise concern with me...
1)
The implication of this declaration is that the public display of WHOIS
records must be different in the following way:
*Legal person *Full display of
all WHOIS records
*Natural person *Limited display
of WHOIS records
Therefore, we are differentiating privacy based on legal entity types. This
is a noted issue on other nations with privacy rights.
2)
6.2 One-time access to one specified full data record that is un-displayed
This type of access would be limited to the record of a Registrant at a
specific time, wherein a specific request is made to the Registrar for each
incident.
§ This access would take place when there is "reasonable
evidence of actionable harm" such as suspected fraudulent activity,
suspected intellectual property infringement, suspected false declaration as
to being a natural person, or where other criminal, civil or administrative
laws may be infringed.
§ Such access would need to be timely to be effective.
(Timeliness would be defined as proportionate to the suspected harm and
related to the means of access).
Any time I see this stuff, I'm reminded of the Third Reich. There was a day
when privacy was paramount. Today there is the mindset that privacy is of
no concern, because - well, one day you may be a criminal. Sure, this
argument exists but its precept is largely based on falsehood. It is very
easy to accomplish the goal of law enforcement and anti-fraud matters
without this argument. However, to keep people running scared we have to
put this argument into all current Nazi materials. I disagree with this
entire section just based on it's intent. Secondarily, there is no way to
implement controls on this.
3)
And here we go again....
6.5 Is there any need for Access?
The group identified two broad categories of Accessors who might have a need
for such access as described above.
§ Public law enforcement agencies (LEAs): governmental
agencies legally mandated to investigate and/or prosecute illegal activity.
§ Private actors: organisations or individuals that are not
part of an LEA.
Did anyone catch that?
AGREED
§ There were circumstances where LEAs must have access
described above (one or more of 6.2, 6.3, 6.4) and that private actors must
have access described above (one or more of 6.2 and 6.3). These
circumstances broadly include suspected terrorist, fraudulent or other
illegal activity, suspected consumer harm and suspected intellectual
property infringement.
And, therefore we group a 'suspected terrorist' with a 'suspected IP
infringer'. Comes straight from the playbook.
4)
AGREED:
§ In the absence of a known method of authentication today
the group recommends access be granted to LEAs and private agencies based on
self-declaration by the Accessor.
§ A system of safeguards to prevent abuse of this Access is
needed such as a challenge mechanism by Registrars.
ALTERNATIVE VIEWS:
Certain user members believed self-declaration was insufficient and that
authentication was essential: thus OPOC implementation should wait until
authentication systems existed.
One registrar member disagreed with the recommendation.
One registry member disagreed with the recommendation
I agree that self-declaration is HIGHLY insufficient. Authentication is
essential, but not in the context that it is being laid out. OK, then I
would guess that people who have intent to defraud would not ever
self-disclose that they are a LEA to gain access to information. Nor, of
course would they create an IBC in Belize and live in Paris, never revealing
any identity. I hope to never live in this dreamworld of FOX news.
However, using this method it would be incredibly easy to misuse the system
and create a larger problem. Why even change the system at all? As is the
WHOIS is bad enough, why make it worse just to the elitists can have their
cake.
---
WHOIS should have a measure of validation of the registrant/agent by
proxy.
WHOIS should not be publicly available.
---
Whatever,
RJ
A at L
On 8/3/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
>
> Please share your comments on version 1.6 of the WHOIS WG report. I've
> already shared my (personal) disagreement with most of the statements of
> claimed "agreement," and with the way disagreement has been
> characterized. Others who'd like to agree or disagree should please do
> so.
>
> I have not said the OPOC should have no responsibilities,
> rather that those responsibilities should be determined between the
> registrant and its OPOC, not imposed by ICANN, since the registrant
> remains responsible for registration and use of the domain name.
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:41:31 +0200
> From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard at aim.be>
> To: <gnso-whois-wg at icann.org>
> References: <p06230911c2d6a8cae753@[10.0.1.2]>
>
>
> Please find attached the outcomes report version 1.6.
>
> This I hope captures the last two weeks of discussion on list and on our
> two calls.
> Changes compared to v1.5 are:
> - new and clarified text;
> - revised levels of support;
> - revised section 7 (with text transferred from section 2);
> - new section 8 (further studies).
> (I considered issuing a red-line tracked version but there have been too
> many changes to
> make this a useful tool.)
>
> I would like to call a halt to changes of substance on the issues: these
> we have well
> covered.
> I would like to invite any comments where you feel any opinion on the
> substance is NOT yet
> recorded.
> Please do NOT repeat earlier opinion: that will just make life more
> challenging to weed out
> duplication.
> Please do WITHDRAW earlier statements of disagreement if you now believe
> the revised text is
> something that you can support.
>
> Comments are open for one week until mid-day Thursday 9 August.
>
> After that we will issue version 1.7 which will factor in any changes
> (as above) along with
> factual and contextual additions from ICANN staff.
>
> I will advise later how long version 1.7 will be up for comment before
> completion of the
> group's work.
> Many thanks.
>
> Philip Sheppard
> Chairman
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
> phone: +1.914.374.0613
> Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>
>
--
-------------------------
AmericaAtLarge.org
RJPacific.com
DDMF.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070807/a33a6415/attachment.html
More information about the At-large
mailing list