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

[maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx]

<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Demonstrable to who?? &nbsp;to whom??
&nbsp;Pardon the grammar, but you get the point. &nbsp;What Verizon supports
is that organizations indicate their respective positions via the process
established by ICANN, rather than through private conversations with a
task force member. &nbsp;</font>
<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>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">01/23/2007 05:52 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">Magnolia 
Mansourkia/EMPL/VA/Verizon@VZNotes</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,
&quot;Metalitz, Steven&quot; &lt;met@xxxxxxx&gt;, 
owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx</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>So even though there are demonstrable issues with
a portion of the <br>
dataset, you would like us to proceed on faith that the rest of the <br>
dataset is valid? That makes no sense whatsoever.<br>
<br>
As far as the audit activities go, there were several organizations <br>
listed on their submission that have taken very strong pro-privacy and
<br>
pro-internet positions in the past. Positions that were completely <br>
contrary to what MarkMonitor was espousing. It didn't take much in terms
<br>
of executive level investigation to find substantial issues with <br>
MarkMonitor's representations about the status of the 
&quot;co-signators&quot;.<br>
<br>
This document should be viewed as one document espousing one set of <br>
views and not be given any special consideration because of the weight
<br>
of the supposed support that comes with it.<br>
<br>
Following through with your logic, I will start opting companies into my
<br>
positions without their knowledge, but give them the opportunity to <br>
write ICANN and let the TF know that they don't really support my <br>
position. Verizon supports this approach, as does the MPAA and AT&amp;T.
And <br>
if they don't, have them write in to let us know that I've mispresented
<br>
your views.<br>
<br>
maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:<br>
&gt; Ok, I didn't realize that we'd been tasked with &quot;auditing&quot;
submissions and I'm <br>
&gt; getting confused. &nbsp;The companies listed are not single person
organization, and <br>
&gt; if someone with authority to do so, signed onto a letter, and yet
someone else <br>
&gt; at the company is not aware of it, why would we have authority (or
even the <br>
&gt; time) to second guess the organization's position?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; It seems to me that if a company was inappropriately listed, then
it is <br>
&gt; incumbent upon the organization to submit a statement to ICANN in
that regard, <br>
&gt; regardless of whether they wish to advocate any position at all. 
&nbsp;Since
most of <br>
&gt; the names listed are substantial companies with household names and
very strong <br>
&gt; representation, it doesn't seem likely that they were somehow fooled
by <br>
&gt; MarkMonitor to endorse a position if they do not in fact do so. &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; If any of the organizations indicate that the organization's name
does not <br>
&gt; belong on the letter, then it should certainly be noted along with
other <br>
&gt; submissions, but I'm not sure how a private conversation with one
member of a <br>
&gt; task force is supposed to be indicative of several organizations'
positions. &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; *&quot;Ross Rader&quot; &lt;ross@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;*<br>
&gt; Sent by: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; 01/23/2007 01:26 PM<br>
&gt; Please respond to<br>
&gt; ross@xxxxxxxxxx<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; To<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 
&nbsp;&quot;Metalitz,
Steven&quot; &lt;met@xxxxxxx&gt;<br>
&gt; cc<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 
&nbsp;gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br>
&gt; Subject<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Re:
[gnso-dow123] FW: MarkMonitor's WHOIS Comments<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Despite this, the interactions I have had with those who supposedly<br>
&gt; support this document, have in fact turned out not to support this<br>
&gt; document. I have not contacted over 100 companies, nor will I, but
in<br>
&gt; the small audit that I conducted, a clear majority of those listed
as<br>
&gt; signatories, were in fact ignorant of the issues and not supportive
of<br>
&gt; the MarkMonitor position.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I think its fine to accept the MarkMonitor submission at face value,
but<br>
&gt; I would also like to ensure that the official record is clear that
those<br>
&gt; listed as signatories are not necessarily supportive of the positions<br>
&gt; espoused and the number of signatures should not be given any weight
in<br>
&gt; our, or ensuing, deliberations.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; -ross<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Metalitz, Steven wrote:<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; fyi, in response to Ross's post yesterday<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; ________________________________<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:00 PM<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; To: Metalitz, Steven<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Subject: MarkMonitor's WHOIS Comments<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Steve,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; I understand that a question has been raised regarding
the MarkMonitor<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Comments to the WHOIS Taskforce Report. &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; The MarkMonitor letter represents the collective perspective
of over 100<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; companies, non-profit groups and other organizations concerned
about the<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; impact of WHOIS policy on their ability to protect their
customers. &nbsp;We<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; stand by these endorsements and wish to provide the WHOIS
Task Force<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; additional information regarding the process by which these
endorsements<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; were collected. &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; We obtained the endorsements through an email communication
that was<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; sent primarily to our clients and to other organizations
interested in<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; the WHOIS issue. &nbsp;The email contained a link to a
website page<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; describing MarkMonitor's Comments, and requested that the
endorser enter<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; their name, email address and Company if they supported
the statements<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; on behalf of their organization. &nbsp; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Those who responded were sent a confirming email (to the
email address<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; they provided) with the following message:<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;&quot;Thank you for your rapid response in support
of this important issue.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; We will include your company name in the letter we plan
on submitting to<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; ICANN early next week in favor of the Special Circumstances
Proposal.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; We are also publishing that letter on our web site at:<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; http://www.markmonitor.com/openwhois/ in order to call
attention to this<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; important issue. &nbsp;Please feel free to contact me at
415-278-8472<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; (honni.marks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) or Margie Milam at 
208-389-5750<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; (margie.milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) if you have any additional
questions or<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; concerns. Again, we appreciate your support and thank you
for response.&quot;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; We know that many of the endorsements resulted from consultation
and<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; coordination within the endorsing entities. &nbsp; For
example, in the case<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; of the Anti-Phishing Working Group, this endorsement was
made after a<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; vote by its steering committee to endorse the MarkMonitor
position. &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; There were also a few endorsements that resulted after
an article<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; appeared in eweek.com regarding this issue &nbsp;(see<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2082346,00.asp<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &lt;http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2082346,00.asp&gt;
&nbsp; ), which<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; resulted in our updated posting on 1/15/07. &nbsp; These
endorsements were<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; confirmed in the same manner as the email communications
described<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; above.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; We are not aware of any concerns regarding the information
provided,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; except for a Mozilla reference which was corrected last
week to be an<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &quot;individual&quot; endorsement instead of a 
&quot;corporate&quot;
endorsement. &nbsp;In<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; addition, yesterday we were informed that dot.berlin has
reconsidered<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; its prior endorsement. &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; As you know, over the past few years ICANN has sought a
broader scope of<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; participation on major issues, including WHOIS issues.
The participation<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; by major corporations and non-profit organizations in this
discussion<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; through their endorsement of the MarkMonitor letter is
in line with<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; ICANN's efforts to seek greater participation, and should
therefore be<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; considered in the Task Force's analysis. &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; If you have any further questions regarding our posting,
please do not<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; hesitate to contact me at (208) 389-5769.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Sincerely,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Margie Milam<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; General Counsel<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; MarkMonitor, Inc.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &nbsp;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
<br>
<br>
</tt></font>
<br>