RE: [gnso-rap-dt] actions from 6 July RAPWG meeting

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for your note, Fred.  The group agreed that the interplay between
WHOIS issues and registration abuse is important and should be discussed.  I
think the issue is whether RAPWG should try and research or "resolve" WHOIS
issues, given that the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group has apparently been
given that job.  Depending on what it is, fact-finding could duplicate work
already being done in the WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group.

 

In such cases where there are scope questions, we have the option of
querying the Council for clarification and possible charter amendments.
Scope issues also affect our timelines, and we are obligated to keep the
Council informed as to scheduling.  I will draft a note to be sent to the
Council, and circulate it on the WG list for comment. 

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

  _____  

From: Frederick Felman [mailto:ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:09 PM
To: gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] actions from 6 July RAPWG meeting

 

Dear Greg:  
   
Thanks for the considered response.  We are not members or participants in
the WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group. 
 
Regardless of the other groups charter and findings, it is incumbent upon
this group to discuss the interplay between accuracy and availability WHOIS
data and registration abuse. WHOIS inaccuracy is endemic to cybersquatting
and other types of registration abuse and indeed may be abuse in its own
right. It is also not outside the scope of this Group to gather facts and
define terms around this pervasive issue.
   
In fact the stated objective of the working group is:  

". to gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus and
definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed, in order to
enable the GNSO Council to make an informed decision as to whether to launch
PDP on registration abuse" 
   
Simply talking about other abuse and stepping around this issue leaves it
unresolved and unaddressed. Let's not hamper our ultimate recommendations to
the GNSO by restricting the scope of discussions.  I would recommend that we
include it as a type of registration abuse and gather more facts around this
issue and determine later how it must be addressed. 
   
Respectfully submitted,  
   
Fred  


PS - Does the inclusion of  "gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx" mean that this note goes
to all members of the RAPWG?  If so, Faisal has not been included in the
distribution.  If not, what is that address?


On 7/7/09 1:16 PM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Fred:
 
Thanks for your note.  The approach discussed yesterday allows the RAPWG to
give examples and highlight the interrelations. Is that what you are
interested in?  Or are you also interested in having the RAPWG make WHOIS
recommendations?
 
The two times that RAPWG has discussed WHOIS, the consensus was that
duplicating WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group efforts would not be a good use of
our time.  The reasoning was that the WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group is the
fundamental community effort to examine WHOIS abuse and the related
registration issues.  The WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group is focused on topics
including: how WHOIS is related to spam, cybercrime, and identity theft;
issues posed by proxy contact services; WHOIS compliance problems; privacy
needs, etc.  So it seems to address major concerns.  The WHOIS Study
Hypotheses Group is also the product of several years of wrangling.  (I
thought Jeff Neuman gave a pretty good summary yesterday of the long history
of those efforts.) 
 
The RAPWG had consensus yesterday that it can include examples and
background in its report when WHOIS issues are a factor in other abuse
issues.  So if we want to, we can do that; issues are sometimes
interrelated.  
 
So this seems like a sensible and balanced approach to me - it allows the
RAPWG to make relevant comment, leaves the WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group to
its carefully created ambit, and allows the RAPWG to focus on the many other
issues we have identified.  I suggest that RAPWG not try to make WHOIS
recommendations.
 
Your thoughts?
 
Is MarkMonitor participating in the WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group?  
 
All best,
--Greg
 
 

  _____  

From: Frederick Felman [mailto:ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 4:59 PM
To: gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] actions from 6 July RAPWG meeting

Greg - 

First - I apologize for being late to the call today.  

Second, with respect to whois, I am more in agreement with Mike Rodenbaugh
than with those that stated they'd like to completely relegate whois issues
to another group.  Nearly all registration abuse is related to whois issues,
all enforcement of such is predicated in some way upon whois, and, to a
large degree the reason we suffer recidivists in registration abuse is due
to whois.

At minimum we need to relate to the broader community the damage caused by
whois abuse as well as the part a better, more accurate & complete whois can
help mitigate registration abuse.  Therefore underscoring the importance of
the whois issue relative to what we are charged to solve.

Do you mind if we revisit briefly at the next meeting?

 - Fred



On 7/6/09 11:34 AM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Action items for follow-up.  As always, goal is to get discussion going on
the group list, and material up on the wiki, to make progress before our
next teleconference on 20 July.
 

*       Cybersquatting sub-group (Fred Felman, Mike Rodenbaugh, James
Bladel, Michael Young, Paul Stahura, Phil Corwin): work on the definition
and post a note to the group when the material is up on the wiki.  Group to
look at and discuss on the list before meeting of July 10.  Definition may
need to take into account the ACPA factors. 
*       Cybersquatting: Marika Konings to add to the doc the list of
possible recommendations/solutions that were mentioned in today's call. 
*       We now have a subgroup on 'uniformity in contracts' composed of
volunteers Mike O'Connor, Berry Cobb, Marika Konings, and Mike Rodenbaugh.
Other who were not on today's call are also invited to volunteer. 

*       The job of this group is to lead the discussion and investigation of
the WG charter questions:  "Understand if registration abuses are occurring
that might be curtailed or better addressed if consistent registration abuse
policies were established... Determine if and how {registration} abuse is
dealt with in those registries {and registrars} that do not have any
specific {policies} in place. Identify how these registration abuse
provisions are {...} implemented in practice or deemed effective in
addressing registration abuse." 
*       Berry has been collecting registrar-registrant agreements. 

*       WHOIS: Greg Aaron to send around links about the GNSO WHOIS Study
Hypotheses Group.  Today RAPWG confirmed agreement that WHOIS is a large
topic (with much history) that should continue to be tackled via the WHOIS
Study Hypotheses Group effort already underway.  RAPWG will therefore not
attempt to tackle WHOIS as an abuse topic, but always have the option of
noting in our report when WHOIS issues are a factor in other abuse issues
and how. 


 
All best,
--Greg 
 
 
**********************************
Greg Aaron
Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security
Afilias
vox: +1.215.706.5700 x104
fax: 1.215.706.5701
gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
**********************************
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your
computer.