Re: [gnso-dow123] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association

["Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just to be clear (and realizing that neither of the parties to this letter
may actually be subscribed to this mailing list), as we've discussed on
various task force calls:

1) Our terms of reference do not include any reference to the collection of
data.  We will not be doing work on this topic, although it's possible the
GNSO may decide additional work is warranted in the future.

2) WIth regards to accuracy, our terms of reference don't contain any
provision to decide whether or not data should be accurate (there is an
existing requirement that it needs to be), but relates more to how we ensure
this requirement is met.

Jordyn

On 6/21/06, Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> To round out the exchange, here is the response sent by Mike Kirk of
> AIPLA to Bruce Tonkin earlier today.
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:34 PM
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-dow123] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual
> Property Law Association
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> I have read the letter from the American Intellectual Property Law
> Association.  I don't understand how the letter relates to the
> formulations 1 or 2.  It seems that members of the community have made
> pre-mature judgements on the eventual outcomes of the WHOIS work.   The
> letter raises issues about the importance of the data, and the need for
> access to that data by law enforcement and other legitimate parties.
> This seems entirely consistent with the current terms of reference of
> the WHOIS task force.  I have sent the following reply to clarify that
> there are no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that
> data to be accurate.  The more important work has yet to be done, which
> is developing better access controls.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Kirk,
>
> I will pass on your letter to the GNSO Council and the WHOIS task force.
>
> I will note however that the GNSO Council does believe that its decision
> is consistent with your requirements below.   The decision makes no
> change to the requirement to collect the data or the requirement that
> the data must be accurate.  Thus the data will still be available to
> prove any IP infringement.   In fact one of the objectives of improving
> controls on access to data is that it will lead to higher data accuracy
> as registrants will be more comfortable in providing their true contact
> information.
>
>
> 1.      A pattern of behavior that can lead to an inference of bad faith
> which, under the UDRP, can result in the transfer of a domain name from
> a bad faith registrant is frequently only provable through WHOIS;
>
> 2.      Unchecked IP infringement undermines business viability and
> technical stability and could result in Internet fragmentation;
>
> 3.      Accurate and available information is essential for law
> enforcement in crimes including spamming, denial of service attacks,
> identity theft and account fraud, hate literature, terrorism and child
> pornography;
>
> 4.      The requirement to provide accurate contact and identity
> information acts as a deterrent to trademark infringement, copyright
> infringement, cybersquatting, phishing, typosquatting and other IP cyber
> infringements and facilitates  enforcement of IP rights.
>
>
> The objective to make up-to-date and accurate WHOIS information
> available to all who have a legitimate need to obtain such information
> is consistent with the aims of the GNSO.  The current work is focussed
> on considering methods for access control that ensure that only those
> with a legitimate need have access.   This work has not yet reached any
> recommendations.
>
> Your letter does not seem to explain why the  American Intellectual
> Property Law Association thinks formulation 1 is inconsistent with those
> aims.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin