Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Nature of the problem / Evidence of harm discussion

["Christopher Lamb" <christopher.lamb17@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri,

No, it isn't about attitudes by law enforcement around the world.  It needs 
to be seen as a US law enforcement issue, and the domestic law and practice 
on RCRC protection against abuse in the US is not the same as in most other 
countries.  I'd caution the group against taking the USA as if it were, 
alone, the world in which the web functions.
This is, as I said before, something of a distraction and anyway it doesn't 
stand as an example of disinterest, more as an example of an attitude at a 
time when the issue of the misuse and abuse of protected names in the Web 
was new and not well understood.
Chris

-----Original Message----- 
From: Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 2:45 PM
To: GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Nature of the problem / Evidence of harm 
discussion

Hi,

This is also interestng in that it shows the attitude toward such claims by 
law enforcement.
I am not sure why we expect ICANN to enforce claims that law enforcement 
will not honor.  One argument has been that we should acquiesce to 
protections because the law requires it.  But the more we look the more it 
appears that the law does not require it (of course we are waiting for the 
final word from legal)  Therefore there will need to be other reasons for 
ICANN to create a policy for such protections.
For some in the group, it seems like showing cases of harm may be 
necessary/beneficial for deciding on policy.  On the other hand, showing 
harm as an admission basis would be another story and one which your 
anecdote might argue against.
avri

On 7 Feb 2013, at 20:30, Christopher Lamb wrote:

> Dear Alan and Thomas,
>
> One thing you might like to have in mind is an experience we had in IFRC 
> after the 2004 Tsunamis.  A web fraud based on abuse of the redcross name 
> was brought to the attention of the FBI because, among other things, it 
> asserted a fax address in Los Angeles.  The response was that they 
> wouldn't take action until and unless we produced evidence of an American 
> citizen victim.  We pointed out (to sympathetic people in the State 
> Department) that this wasn't the point at all, and furthermore that by the 
> time we had a "victim" the game would have been lost.  These fraudsters 
> set out to get their money in the first couple of days after the disaster 
> strikes, when it's still newsworthy, and the victim doesn't usually know 
> that s/he is a victim at all for much longer than that.  The FBI remained 
> unimpressed, but we got what we needed in the end from Interpol after the 
> intervention of a police force in another country named in the fraud.
> This is, however, something of a distraction from the point about the 
> provision of protection to those organisations which receive it at all 
> other levels of public information dissemination.  International and 
> national law and the obligations on governments therefrom are critically 
> important considerations, and were obligations accepted by governments for 
> specific reasons (for example in the 1949 Geneva Conventions) without the 
> need for any discussion of the quality of evidence of harm.
> All the best
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:18 AM
> To: Thomas Rickert ; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Nature of the problem / Evidence of harm 
> discussion
>
> 1. Yes, but I think the question is phrased slightly incorrectly.
> Your wording could be taken to mean that we would only grant
> protections to a particular organization if they can demonstrate
> previous harm. My interest is to try to understand the range of harms
> and protective actions taken prior to trying to establish the
> criteria for granting special protections.
>
> 2. Not applicable.
>
> At 07/02/2013 03:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>
> > All,
> > following up on yesterday's call I would like to ask all of you to answer 
> > either of the following questions. As you will remember, there was some 
> > debate surrounding the question if and what evidence of harm needs to be 
> > presented to the group and Chuck proposed the following questions, which 
> > I have modified a bit:
> > 1. Are there those who want to see evidence of harm before considering 
> > granting protections?
> > 2. Are there those who are requiring protections who are unwilling to 
> > provide information? If so, are you offering other or a subset of the 
> > information required according to the survey sheet.
> > Please answer the question by next Tuesday.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Thomas