[At-Large] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Mon Sep 10 22:25:23 UTC 2012
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Derek Smythe <derek at aa419.org> wrote:
> I would normally agree, except this is not how it happens in reality.
>
You have an absolutely valid point. The reality is also that there are
people whose rights have been infringed whether they have been defrauded
and due process can be difficult.
>
> We have the theory, but then there is reality....
>
> You cannot expect Parliaments etc to really take notice and address
> issues if the internet public themselves are self defeatist. The
> current mantra is "privacy and anonymity at all costs".
Recently the South Korean Courts ruled in favour of allowing privacy but
said that where criminal investigations then internet addresses could be
looked up. See: http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201 the
208241354087&code=790101<http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241354087&code=790101>
There are things that will require consideration where there are competing
categories. Even the Review Team and consensus from the general community
recognise that there are legitimate grounds for protection of privacy and I
am absolutely sure that it does not include harbouring "criminals". I agree
with you.
Essentially
> this creates an environment that is totally unmanageable and creates a
> threat to everyone. We need responsibility in this process.
>
> I agree!
> What do you think happens currently? We find bullet proof hosters,
> uncooperative registrars referring us to IC3's website and IC3 only
> willing to address the worst of the worst. But what is teh worst, if
> you can't link incidents?
>
> This is precisely why ICANN needs to toughen up and get its act together
and force Registrars (yes force) to pull the plug on Registrants and
resellers who are not managing the Whois lookups properly provided that
proper processes and notifications have been followed.
> The current implementation of the WHOIS policy allows a malicious
> registrant to change names to perpetuate malicious activities. In the
> process he uses VPNs that keep no logs, paid for by places totally
> outside the recognized monetary systems. This leaves law enforcement
> virtually powerless.
>
The GNSO after calls from the community and mainly the GAC pushing is
currently doing studies which were supposed to be completed this year but
will conclude next year, see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/studies.
Whois Misuse Study;Whois Proxy and Privacy Abuse; Whois Registrant
Identification and Whois Proxy & Privacy Relay and Reveal Study.
I had recommended to the ALAC that At Large gather feedback and send them
to the GNSO to give to those conducting the Studies. We do not have to wait
for the results of the Studies to come back before we cross pollinate.
Shall we start putting something together? Let me know. We can make
submissions. I will try and put a skeletal submission and send to the
community to give their feedback. I know Garth has done this before. It
will be great to collate feedback from all over At Large, I know that our
Whois Chair, Carlton would be willing to push this through.
>
> By the time victim losses eventually tally to the point where law
> enforcement takes notice, much harm has been dome already.
>
> In the past I mentioned Heihachi here, a "Russina" reseller for an
> American registrar who refused to deal with the issue effectively. The
> reseller themselves had fake WHOIS registration data, but were allowed
> to act as a privacy proxy.
>
> This should not be tolerated.
> In the process they shielded a group known as the fake shopkeepers.
> This resulted in what was described as Germany's largest cyber-scam
> last month in the media when the perpetrators were sentenced;
> ~2000 victims opened cases,
> over 1m € losses,
> 190 recorded fake shops.
>
> This is an excellent point especially the Economic loss.
> Of those 190 shops, approximately half were domains via Turkish
> registrar, the other half via American. It's not as if the reports
> weren't flowing in before of fake whois and abuse.
>
> The news reports ignore numerous DDoS attacks on servers worldwide,
> from the USA to India and Germay, mixed with hacking attempts by this
> gang using the Heihachi network.
>
>
> Currently we have garbage going into the system, yet we are loathe to
> clean up and wish to pass the buck. Many times privacy/anonymity is
> used as an excuse for this garbage. "Due process" takes a lot of time
> and money, all for the sake of an unverified $10 domain registration.
> Who foots the bill for that? The victim? Why victimize a victim further?
>
> Then off course there is the presumption that due process works across
> international borders. Unfortunately we do not have a perfect world.
>
> As the situation currently stands, the worst enemy of the ordinary
> user is privacy and anonymity. Right now innocent peoples data is
> being stolen and abused by a few anonymous players using domains and
> resources purchased with anonymizing mechanisms.
>
> We should not have to wait for 2013 or some consensus policy to address
this! This is purely being a responsible netizen.
> I would strongly suggest that ICANN and a knowledgeable independent
> party does a study on how bad actors were able to target innocent
> users using the DNS system and associated anonymizing mechanisms. I
> believe the fake shopkeeper saga in Germany would be a great case
> study as this effected the stability of and trust in the net.
This is currently being done, see the link to the Studies I sent.
> The fact
> that the owner of Heihachi was arrested eventually is small
> consolation for those he harmed (he was not Russian, an open secret,
> except no-one was willing to listen). Likewise the fake shop gang in
> Germany who eventually got their day in court is small consolation.
>
> My point:
>
> It is easy to debate these issues without real experience or reference
> points of what is happening in the abuse arena. In fact most law
> enforcement officials and parliamentarians do not even understand the
> real Internet and the threats the great unwashed are experiencing.
>
That's the whole point about debate and dialogue to tease out issues.
> I can report domains that target end users
>
Excellent, maybe the At large could even help by having a "name and shame"
space somewhere...
> On 9/10/2012 9:45 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> > I should also add that the threats that accompany the TPP gives rise to
> > what Holly mentions in terms of "private law enforcement" where IP mark
> > holders by virtue of serving notice directly can have access. This is why
> > laws need to be debated by people in Parliaments or Legislative
> > Assemblies. What happens to "Due Process"? What constitutes a
> > legal seizure of a Domain Name?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Carlton Samuels
> > <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Holly:
> >> Absolutely, the privacy issues you highlighted do attract spirited
> debate
> >> and very emotional responses. The ALAC has staked out its position and
> at
> >> least for the last 3 years, that position has been consistently
> reiterated:
> >> a recognition that in furtherance of free speech rights, some groups,
> >> especially ones that might be politically inconvenient, do indeed
> deserve
> >> some protection; a formal community embrace of defined privacy services
> >> and their providers; the conditions under which a privacy provider
> would be
> >> authorised.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> - Carlton
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ==============================
> >> Carlton A Samuels
> >> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >> =============================
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Carlton
> >>>
> >>> Privacy was one of the really hard issues that the Whois Review had to
> >>> grapple with. If you look at the initial report (as opposed to the
> Final
> >>> and Final Final reports) two privacy issues are there. The first is how
> >> to
> >>> determine registrant eligibility for the privacy server. Should it be
> >>> confined to individuals, or include organisations (clear candidates
> would
> >>> be human rights groups in many countries, womens' refuges etc) Trying
> to
> >>> define eligibility will be a challenge. The other challenge is to
> >> define
> >>> who has legitimate access to the contact information held by the
> privacy
> >>> server. 'Law enforcement agencies' was the initial thought. But in
> some
> >>> countries, private organisations also perform law enforcement tasks
> under
> >>> contract to the agency. They are performing legitimate law enforcement
> >>> tasks but aren't themselves, agencies. Should they have access. Even
> >> more
> >>> difficult are the countries where the state itself is the oppressor -
> and
> >>> its 'law enforcement' agencies are the very reason for the need for
> >>> privacy.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure that is the reason the Final Final report backed away from any
> >>> details on the proposal - and probably why discussion is being fostered
> >> now.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect there will be many varied and divergent views within ALAC -
> all
> >>> of them legitimate. Providing input on what is a complex, vexed issue
> >> will
> >>> be a challenge for GAC - and for ALAC.
> >>>
> >>> Holly
> >>>
> >>> On 08/09/2012, at 12:46 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> FYI. Note the specific request for advice via GAC on data protection.
> >>>> - Carlton
> >>>>
> >>>> ==============================
> >>>> Carlton A Samuels
> >>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >>>> =============================
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>> From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz at icann.org>
> >>>> Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM
> >>>> Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since
> >>> Prague
> >>>> To: "soac-discussion at icann.org" <soac-discussion at icann.org>
> >>>> Cc: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin at markmonitor.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA
> >>>> negotiations, we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the
> work
> >>>> conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members.
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received
> >> from
> >>>> the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the
> >> complex
> >>>> issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations. Several
> >>>> meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto,
> including
> >>>> plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts
> >> on
> >>>> several specific issues. There is also an agreement among the
> >>> negotiation
> >>>> teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy
> >>>> accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community.
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the
> >>>> ICANN wiki at:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> Kurt Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>> <smime.p7s>_______________________________________________
> >>>> At-Large mailing list
> >>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>>>
> >>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
More information about the At-Large
mailing list