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

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

So even though there are demonstrable issues with a portion of the 
dataset, you would like us to proceed on faith that the rest of the 
dataset is valid? That makes no sense whatsoever.

As far as the audit activities go, there were several organizations 
listed on their submission that have taken very strong pro-privacy and 
pro-internet positions in the past. Positions that were completely 
contrary to what MarkMonitor was espousing. It didn't take much in terms 
of executive level investigation to find substantial issues with 
MarkMonitor's representations about the status of the "co-signators".

This document should be viewed as one document espousing one set of 
views and not be given any special consideration because of the weight 
of the supposed support that comes with it.

Following through with your logic, I will start opting companies into my 
positions without their knowledge, but give them the opportunity to 
write ICANN and let the TF know that they don't really support my 
position. Verizon supports this approach, as does the MPAA and AT&T. And 
if they don't, have them write in to let us know that I've mispresented 
your views.

maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ok, I didn't realize that we'd been tasked with "auditing" submissions and I'm 
> getting confused.  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?
>
> 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.  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.  
>
> 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.  
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>*
> Sent by: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx
>
> 01/23/2007 01:26 PM
> Please respond to
> ross@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>     
> To
>         "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
> cc
>         gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject
>         Re: [gnso-dow123] FW: MarkMonitor's WHOIS Comments
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Despite this, the interactions I have had with those who supposedly
> support this document, have in fact turned out not to support this
> document. I have not contacted over 100 companies, nor will I, but in
> the small audit that I conducted, a clear majority of those listed as
> signatories, were in fact ignorant of the issues and not supportive of
> the MarkMonitor position.
>
> I think its fine to accept the MarkMonitor submission at face value, but
> I would also like to ensure that the official record is clear that those
> listed as signatories are not necessarily supportive of the positions
> espoused and the number of signatures should not be given any weight in
> our, or ensuing, deliberations.
>
> -ross
>
> Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>  > fyi, in response to Ross's post yesterday
>  >
>  > ________________________________
>  >
>  > From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>  > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:00 PM
>  > To: Metalitz, Steven
>  > Subject: MarkMonitor's WHOIS Comments
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Steve,
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > I understand that a question has been raised regarding the MarkMonitor
>  > Comments to the WHOIS Taskforce Report.  
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > The MarkMonitor letter represents the collective perspective of over 100
>  > companies, non-profit groups and other organizations concerned about the
>  > impact of WHOIS policy on their ability to protect their customers.  We
>  > stand by these endorsements and wish to provide the WHOIS Task Force
>  > additional information regarding the process by which these endorsements
>  > were collected.  
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > We obtained the endorsements through an email communication that was
>  > sent primarily to our clients and to other organizations interested in
>  > the WHOIS issue.  The email contained a link to a website page
>  > describing MarkMonitor's Comments, and requested that the endorser enter
>  > their name, email address and Company if they supported the statements
>  > on behalf of their organization.    
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > Those who responded were sent a confirming email (to the email address
>  > they provided) with the following message:
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  >  "Thank you for your rapid response in support of this important issue.
>  > We will include your company name in the letter we plan on submitting to
>  > ICANN early next week in favor of the Special Circumstances Proposal.
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > We are also publishing that letter on our web site at:
>  > http://www.markmonitor.com/openwhois/ in order to call attention to this
>  > important issue.  Please feel free to contact me at 415-278-8472
>  > (honni.marks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) or Margie Milam at 208-389-5750
>  > (margie.milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) if you have any additional questions or
>  > concerns. Again, we appreciate your support and thank you for response."
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > We know that many of the endorsements resulted from consultation and
>  > coordination within the endorsing entities.   For example, in the case
>  > of the Anti-Phishing Working Group, this endorsement was made after a
>  > vote by its steering committee to endorse the MarkMonitor position.  
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > There were also a few endorsements that resulted after an article
>  > appeared in eweek.com regarding this issue  (see
>  > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2082346,00.asp
>  > <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2082346,00.asp>   ), which
>  > resulted in our updated posting on 1/15/07.   These endorsements were
>  > confirmed in the same manner as the email communications described
>  > above.
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > We are not aware of any concerns regarding the information provided,
>  > except for a Mozilla reference which was corrected last week to be an
>  > "individual" endorsement instead of a "corporate" endorsement.  In
>  > addition, yesterday we were informed that dot.berlin has reconsidered
>  > its prior endorsement.  
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > As you know, over the past few years ICANN has sought a broader scope of
>  > participation on major issues, including WHOIS issues. The participation
>  > by major corporations and non-profit organizations in this discussion
>  > through their endorsement of the MarkMonitor letter is in line with
>  > ICANN's efforts to seek greater participation, and should therefore be
>  > considered in the Task Force's analysis.        
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > If you have any further questions regarding our posting, please do not
>  > hesitate to contact me at (208) 389-5769.
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > Sincerely,
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  > Margie Milam
>  >
>  > General Counsel
>  >
>  > MarkMonitor, Inc.
>  >
>  >  
>  >
>  >