RE: [gnso-dow123] Emailing: 2100-9588_22-5986553.htm

["Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>]

Paul-
Thanks for managing to remain civil this time around.  I'm sure your
right on this fact, but it doesn't change my point.  I still don't find
a domain registration to a phone number or driver's license as being an
accurate comparison. 
Maggie

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 8:33 PM
To: Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie); Milton Mueller; kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
KathrynKL@xxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Emailing: 2100-9588_22-5986553.htm

Not all domain names that are registered point to websites, so it is not
true that all are "holding himself/itself out to the public"

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 9:04 AM
To: Milton Mueller; kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx; KathrynKL@xxxxxxx;
gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Emailing: 2100-9588_22-5986553.htm

Milton-
I didn't receive notice of the conference until a couple of weeks prior,
when I had already made travel arrangements, I was not present.  As a
network provider, in fact our largest customer base is covered by the IP
Whois database. If the ISPCP had been given proper notice and an
invitation to speak at your conference, everyone could have been
educated on this issue. 

I do not live in Canada or Britain, and as you may have noted from my
email, I had said nothing about those countries' law enforcement
efforts.  Since you brought it up, I will say, however, that six weeks
ago I spoke with a law enforcement official from Great Britain who
indicated that they need greater tools to fight cyber crimes in GB
because their current regime had proven woefully inadequate, and thus
they implemented massive data retention requirements.  Their thinking
was that, they will just require ISPs, Registrars and any other online
businesses to collect all data, in mass, regardless type and transfer it
to the hands of the government, regardless of whether it is remotely
related to an investigation or not.  To me, that is a far greater
concern for privacy than any Whois access.  

If your analogy to phone numbers and drivers' licenses related to
personal email addresses, I could agree with you. But by registering a
domain and operating a website, a person or organization is holding
himself/itself out to the public, and I believe there should be some
accountability as a result. 

I truly don't see the priorities as black and white as you do, but I am
hopeful that we can find some middle ground that is both appropriately
protective while not providing a safe haven to nefarious actors.

Regards,
Maggie

Magnolia Mansourkia
Director
Internet and Ecommerce Law, MCI
202-736-6448 Voice
202-736-6460 Fax
222-6448 Vnet


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 1:03 AM
To: kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx; KathrynKL@xxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Emailing: 2100-9588_22-5986553.htm

Here we go again! Why do I have this feeling of deja vu? 

Maggie and Steve: as you should have learned during our conference in
Vancouver, the contact information ISPs and telephone companies have
about their subscribers is not subject to complete, open public access
to anyone and everyone (including criminals). WHOIS is the exception,
not the rule, and that exception is illegal in a number of countries. 

Are you saying that law enforcement attempts to combat phishing, etc.
are worse in Canada and Britain because of individuals' ability to
protect their data? 

Are you calling for the abolition of unlisted phone numbers? 

Are you saying that anyone should be able to type a drivers' license
into a web interface and get the name, address and phone number of the
driver? 

If not, then you are on our side on the Whois question.

The priorities are simple: protect legitimate individual privacy rights,
and accuracy measures will find plenty of support. Continue to denigrate
those rights, and you will find no support for your efforts to coerce
registrars into exposing sensitive subscriber data in order to make your
trademark and copyright protection efforts a bit cheaper. 

>>> "Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
12/8/2005 12:24:50 PM >>>
The problem is that your answer does not take human nature and the
tenacity of criminals into consideration.  Limits on Whois access will
not reduce the number of criminals or bad actors making up false
information; it will only reduce the tools available to locate, remove
and/or prosecute them.  There are far more bad actors registering
domains than there are those falsifying information as a privacy
concern.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of KathrynKL@xxxxxxx 
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 8:40 AM
To: kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Emailing: 2100-9588_22-5986553.htm

 

The answer seems to be right in front of us:  

-  introduce basic privacy protections and people will not be reduced to
"self-help" measures of putting inaccurate information into the Whois;

-  Introduce basic privacy protections and the level of accuracy in the
Whois will sky-rocket.  -  Introduce basic privacy protections and the
bad actors will be much easier to identify and address.

 

Kathy

        More than 8 percent of all Internet domain names are registered
with false or incomplete information, according to a U.S. government
study into the prevalence of phony Web sites.