RE: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Draft BC comments on new study of privacy/proxy abuse

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Tim,
 
Welcome to the party.
 
As for use cases, I have found them useful in sales settings, but I think they 
cause more problems than they solve in policy matters.  We ought to be focused 
on outcomes -- what we don't want to happen, what we do want to happen -- and 
allow for some creativity/innovation in making it happen.  Of course, such an 
outcomes-based regime demands there be oversight and penalties.  It is ICANN's 
falling short on the oversight that makes prescriptive use cases seem a good 
choice, but I prefer we hold out.
 
Cheers,
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Draft 
BC comments on new study of privacy/proxy abuse
From: "Chen, Tim" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/31/13 2:54 pm
To: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>

 The Whois Privacy and Proxy issue is enormously important to the safety and 
security (not so sure about 'stability') of the Internet, something we're meant 
to care a lot about.  Being new, I'm still not clear how this study dovetails 
with the ARDS work where, it appears, actual change can be manifested.    
But an area I'd like to see more clarity in is the use-cases where privacy is 
important for the 'legitimate' registrants.  I only ever hear about two:  free 
speech and not-tipping-your-hat about new products.  It seems if we could 
outline specific use cases, we could at least try to solve for them.  For 
example, at the risk of this being stupid rather than clever, couldn't it be a 
possible solution to the latter that privacy registration is allowed so long as 
the domain isn't put live into DNS?  i.e. no nameserver.    Amazon can go 
register or buy all its "Kindle" domain names a year ahead of launch, and just 
sit on them until go-live, at which point privacy goes away and their actual 
contact info is shown for those domains that are delegated into DNS.
 
Our clients are increasingly in the network security and threat investigation 
realm.  Their voice is very relevant for the BC.  Speaking for them if I may, 
whois privacy is one of their biggest consternations, and is a huge hurdle 
between being able to defend and investigate, and being left powerless.
 
Anyway, thanks to Elisa and Susan.  I only made it through the Exec Summary of 
that doc (62 pages!?), and know that whois has a long history as in issue 
within the ICANN constituencies, so apologies if this is old hat.  If nothing 
else, I'm 110% behind make progress on whois privacy and proxy.
 
Looking forward to meeting everybody in Buenos Aires.
 
-Tim



 On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
        During last 2 BC member calls and in the 3-Oct email below, we called 
for volunteers to draft a BC comment on the new independent Study of Whois 
Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse.  (link)
 
Fortunately, Elisa Cooper and Susan Kawaguchi volunteered to review the study 
and draft our comments.
 


The first draft is attached, giving BC members 12 days to review and comment 
before the 11-Nov deadline.     
 
Please REPLY ALL with any questions or suggestions.   
 
Thanks again to Elisa and Susan for taking the lead.
 



 

 From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Friday, October 4, 2013 11:09 AM
 To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Susan Kawaguchi 
<susank@xxxxxx>
 Cc: BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm@xxxxxxxxx>, Elisa Cooper 
<Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Subject: Business Constituency comments on new study of privacy/proxy abuse 
 
On today's BC call, we talked about the new independent Study of Whois Privacy 
& Proxy Service Abuse.
 


The BC advocated for this study several years ago.  And these Results verify BC 
suspicion that bad actors use P/P to avoid identification.  But there are many 
important findings here, and we need volunteers to analyze and draft BC 
comments.