Re: [gnso-dow123] FW: MarkMonitor's WHOIS Comments

[maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx]

<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ok, I didn't realize that we'd been
tasked with &quot;auditing&quot; submissions and I'm getting confused.
&nbsp;The companies listed are not single person organization, and if someone
with authority to do so, signed onto a letter, and yet someone else at
the company is not aware of it, why would we have authority (or even the
time) to second guess the organization's position?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">It seems to me that if a company was
inappropriately listed, then it is incumbent upon the organization to submit
a statement to ICANN in that regard, regardless of whether they wish to
advocate any position at all. &nbsp;Since most of the names listed are
substantial companies with household names and very strong representation,
it doesn't seem likely that they were somehow fooled by MarkMonitor to
endorse a position if they do not in fact do so. &nbsp;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">If any of the organizations indicate
that the organization's name does not belong on the letter, then it should
certainly be noted along with other submissions, but I'm not sure how a
private conversation with one member of a task force is supposed to be
indicative of several organizations' positions. &nbsp;</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>&quot;Ross Rader&quot;
&lt;ross@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;</b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">01/23/2007 01:26 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
ross@xxxxxxxxxx</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&quot;Metalitz, Steven&quot;
&lt;met@xxxxxxx&gt;</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [gnso-dow123] FW: 
MarkMonitor's
WHOIS Comments</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Despite this, the interactions I have had with those
who supposedly <br>
support this document, have in fact turned out not to support this <br>
document. I have not contacted over 100 companies, nor will I, but in <br>
the small audit that I conducted, a clear majority of those listed as <br>
signatories, were in fact ignorant of the issues and not supportive of
<br>
the MarkMonitor position.<br>
<br>
I think its fine to accept the MarkMonitor submission at face value, but
<br>
I would also like to ensure that the official record is clear that those
<br>
listed as signatories are not necessarily supportive of the positions <br>
espoused and the number of signatures should not be given any weight in
<br>
our, or ensuing, deliberations.<br>
<br>
-ross<br>
<br>
Metalitz, Steven wrote:<br>
&gt; fyi, in response to Ross's post yesterday<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; ________________________________<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] <br>
&gt; Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:00 PM<br>
&gt; To: Metalitz, Steven<br>
&gt; Subject: MarkMonitor's WHOIS Comments<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Steve,<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I understand that a question has been raised regarding the MarkMonitor<br>
&gt; Comments to the WHOIS Taskforce Report. &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; The MarkMonitor letter represents the collective perspective of over
100<br>
&gt; companies, non-profit groups and other organizations concerned about
the<br>
&gt; impact of WHOIS policy on their ability to protect their customers.
&nbsp;We<br>
&gt; stand by these endorsements and wish to provide the WHOIS Task Force<br>
&gt; additional information regarding the process by which these 
endorsements<br>
&gt; were collected. &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; We obtained the endorsements through an email communication that was<br>
&gt; sent primarily to our clients and to other organizations interested
in<br>
&gt; the WHOIS issue. &nbsp;The email contained a link to a website page<br>
&gt; describing MarkMonitor's Comments, and requested that the endorser
enter<br>
&gt; their name, email address and Company if they supported the statements<br>
&gt; on behalf of their organization. &nbsp; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Those who responded were sent a confirming email (to the email address<br>
&gt; they provided) with the following message:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;&quot;Thank you for your rapid response in support of this important
issue.<br>
&gt; We will include your company name in the letter we plan on submitting
to<br>
&gt; ICANN early next week in favor of the Special Circumstances Proposal.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; We are also publishing that letter on our web site at:<br>
&gt; http://www.markmonitor.com/openwhois/ in order to call attention to
this<br>
&gt; important issue. &nbsp;Please feel free to contact me at 415-278-8472<br>
&gt; (honni.marks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) or Margie Milam at 208-389-5750<br>
&gt; (margie.milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) if you have any additional questions
or<br>
&gt; concerns. Again, we appreciate your support and thank you for 
response.&quot;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; We know that many of the endorsements resulted from consultation and<br>
&gt; coordination within the endorsing entities. &nbsp; For example, in
the case<br>
&gt; of the Anti-Phishing Working Group, this endorsement was made after
a<br>
&gt; vote by its steering committee to endorse the MarkMonitor position.
&nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; There were also a few endorsements that resulted after an article<br>
&gt; appeared in eweek.com regarding this issue &nbsp;(see<br>
&gt; http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2082346,00.asp<br>
&gt; &lt;http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2082346,00.asp&gt; &nbsp;
), which<br>
&gt; resulted in our updated posting on 1/15/07. &nbsp; These endorsements
were<br>
&gt; confirmed in the same manner as the email communications described<br>
&gt; above.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; We are not aware of any concerns regarding the information provided,<br>
&gt; except for a Mozilla reference which was corrected last week to be
an<br>
&gt; &quot;individual&quot; endorsement instead of a &quot;corporate&quot;
endorsement. &nbsp;In<br>
&gt; addition, yesterday we were informed that dot.berlin has reconsidered<br>
&gt; its prior endorsement. &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; As you know, over the past few years ICANN has sought a broader scope
of<br>
&gt; participation on major issues, including WHOIS issues. The 
participation<br>
&gt; by major corporations and non-profit organizations in this discussion<br>
&gt; through their endorsement of the MarkMonitor letter is in line with<br>
&gt; ICANN's efforts to seek greater participation, and should therefore
be<br>
&gt; considered in the Task Force's analysis. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; If you have any further questions regarding our posting, please do
not<br>
&gt; hesitate to contact me at (208) 389-5769.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Sincerely,<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Margie Milam<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; General Counsel<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; MarkMonitor, Inc.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
<br>
<br>
</tt></font>
<br>