[At-Large] protecting domain speculators from oversight

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 23:17:58 UTC 2013

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:

> On 01/24/2013 02:46 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> :
> >> My personal belief is that if one wants to try to penetrate those
> >> records that one should have to initiate civil legal process by
> >> submitting a properly formed legal complaint that states a concrete
> >> cause of action and then to use standard procedures to have the
> >> registrar of record disclose the desired information.
> >
> > That reasoning is obsolete. This is the Internet. It's international. It
> > is full of people who do not care about this legal mumble jumble. That
> > includes people who get scammed from phishing and make.money.fast
> schemes.
> I am not willing to accept that due process is an obsolete concept.
> Yes, it is quite true that our current legal systems are not yet as
> efficient or fast as most of us would like when procedures have to cross
> jurisdictional boundaries.
> The answer is to create modern due process rather than abandon due process.
> The procedures that I have suggested conform, I believe, with fairly
> widely held conceptions of due process, such as the requirement that
> those who stand in the role of the plaintiff (the one wanting whois
> data), have the obligation of stating a prima facie case supported by at
> least a minimal body of evidence that strongly suggests that the accused
> has caused some legally cognizable harm to the plaintiff.
> Notice that I said "strongly suggests" rather than "proves".  I did this
> to bring speed to the proposed system.  That's why I added the
> obligation that the plaintiff must post some money that could be used to
> partially compensate the accused should the accusation be challenged and
> shown to have been made frivolously, recklessly, or falsely.
> Today's whois system does not even require that the accuser identify
> himself, much less that he make an actual accusation, and even much less
> to present some evidence that an actual harm has occurred.
> I have presented a mildly detailed procedure through which we could
> bring whois access into conformity with widely held (and not just in the
> US) principles of due process.
> The procedure that I have presented removes much of the delay and cost
> of traditional cross-boundary legal procedures yet preserves many (but
> not all) of the safety protections.  And it works on the internet.

I find these discussions interesting because on one hand there is due
process and on the other hand is inter-agency cooperation between law
enforcement authorities where information can be released/disclosed subject
to degrees of harmonization of laws. We have seen this kind of inter-agency
cooperation take place in recent times during the global clamp down of
Operation Ghostnet.

On a similar note, I have been patiently waiting for the release of the
reports on the studies commissioned by the GNSO which were extended to 2013
when results should have been out in 2012. *

One thing is for certain, even the OECD has addressed in various reports
the need for the likes of revenue authorities to be interested in the
development of things like Whois.  If we were to examine the categories of
inter-agency cooperation based on a series of their core business it could
look like this:-

   - cyber security
   - revenue authorities;
   - etc

The results of these studies should help add to our discussions. In the
meantime, I am enjoying reading all your comments.

>                 --karl--
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

More information about the At-Large mailing list