RE: [gnso-rap-dt] revised WHOIS note

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mike:

So you like us to move you into the "Alternate View" category?  

BTW, proxy WHOIS is the subject of three of the six studies that the GNSO
Council recently asked ICANN policy staff to pursue.

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ 
"During its 4 March meeting in Mexico City, the GNSO Council adopted a
resolution asking Policy Staff to pursue cost estimates for six WHOIS study
areas recommended by members of the ICANN community and ICANN's Government
Advisory Committee. The six areas are: ...
3. The extent to which proxy and privacy services are being used for abusive
and/or illegal purposes, and complicate investigation into e-crimes; 
4. The extent to which proxy and privacy services respond to information
requests when presented with reasonable evidence of actionable harm;...
6. Whether proxy/privacy services are used by registrants who are legal vs.
natural persons and whether most information requests are directed at
registrants who are natural persons....
Staff is currently taking up this work, including consultation with the
Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees as requested, and will be
reporting back to the GNSO Council with estimated timeframes for
completion."

The questions were the work of the GNSO's WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group. The
Council got that group together because it wanted a "comprehensive,
objective, and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding
the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts."


So the Council and Staff are going to get the facts together.  Is it fair to
assume that once the Council receives its reports it will begin whatever
policy-making activity it deems appropriate?

All best,
--Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:16 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] revised WHOIS note


I am generally in agreement, with one significant caveat.  Abuse of WHOIS
proxy services is something this group should look at, particularly when
registrars are providing the service and do not divulge underlying WHOIS
info upon reasonable evidence of abuse, as clearly required by the RAA.
This issue is not examined by any other WG, and fits nicely into the work
this WG is doing, without likelihood of falling into the broader WHOIS
rathole around accuracy and access, since that WHOIS info is technically
accurate and is accessible.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
+1.415.738.8087
www.rodenbaugh.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 12:34 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] revised WHOIS note

Dear group:

 

Below is the revised note as per today's meeting; please review it for
accuracy.  Members absent from today's meeting are free to comment (but
please listen to today's MP3 first -- linked on page
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#july).  If you would like to see any changes
to the below, please post specifics to the list by 22:00 UTC on Thursday the
23rd.  Lack of comment will be taken as your assent.  

 

All best,

--Greg A.

 

 

**********************************

Dear Avri, Chuck, and Mike:

 

I am writing to you on behalf of the Registration Abuse Policies Working
Group (RAPWG), which would like to provide you with a scope update.

 

As you know, the RAPWG charter contains the broad mandate to "identify which
aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to
address and which are within the set of topics on which ICANN may establish
policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited
registrars," and to "gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate
focus and definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed."

 

During the RAPWG's work, the issue of WHOIS has been raised.  WHOIS is a
topic within GNSO policy-making scope, an area around which there are abuse
and compliance issues, and WHOIS issues are a factor in other abuse topics.
We are also aware of the very long history of WHOIS discussions in the GNSO,
and WHOIS efforts the GNSO currently has underway. (See:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ ).  

 

Because of the past and present GNSO efforts, the RAPWG has decided that it
will a) leave WHOIS off its list of registration abuses for major
examination, research, and recommendation-making, and b) will include
examples and background in its report when WHOIS issues are a factor in
other abuse issues.  We believe that this will allow us to make relevant
comments while avoiding duplication of previous and current GNSO efforts
regarding WHOIS.

 

The RAPWG discussed the issue in its meetings of July 6 and 20, and came to
unanimous consensus on the above approach in its July 20th meeting (support:
James Bladel, Berry Cobb, Philip Corwin, Frederick Felman, Jeremy Hitchcock,
George Kirikos, Mike O'Connor, Gretchen Olive, Rod Rasmussen, Mike
Rodenbaugh, Faisal Shah, Andy Steingruebl, Martin Sutton, Greg Aaron.
Alternate views: none.  Abstentions: none.) 

 

We believe this course is consistent with our charter.  Please let us know
if the Council disagrees with this course, or if you have any questions.

 

In the meantime, the RAPWG is working on a long list of other topics,
including examinations of cybersquatting, front-running, and
cybercrime-related issues.  A full list is in the latest "RAPWG Abuse
Categories and Types" document at:
https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?registration_abuse_policies_work
ing_group

 

Thank you.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

--Greg Aaron

Chair, RAPWG

 

**********************************