<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-7" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19088"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Nuno,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I think that you are addressing a different issue. Let's
stick to the subject at hand. I didn't pick the driving analogy (Nicolas
did), but it isn't a bad one. We can use any other, but the underlying
issue remains. I'll attempt to differentiate my comments from your
remarks.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I <STRONG>support</STRONG> full access to the internet by
everyone, everywhere, any time - I do not see how you reached the opposite
conclusion. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Requiring that people who <STRONG>choose</STRONG> to register
a domain name are contactable <STRONG>does not</STRONG> deny anyone access to
the internet or the information published thereon. You don't need a domain
name to access the internet - any ISP, internet cafe, or thousands of other
access points suffice. You also do not need a domain name to freely
publish on the internet - hosting services (web, ftp and other) abound - many at
zero cost. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>If you register a domain name, you are becoming part
of the network infrastructure</STRONG> - and that requires that you be
contactable. Perhaps it's that your domain name isn't resolvable from some
part of the world - or has invalid signatures that cause web browsing to fail,
is supplying poisoned cache records, or is supporting a DDOS attack. Or
your mail server is generating spam. Whether you personally operate those
servers, or contract someone else to do so for your domain - once you register a
domain name, you are responsible for having them operate responsibly. And
"responsibly" isn't subjective - it's the subject of the RFCs and standards that
make the nework function. This is <STRONG>not</STRONG> religion, politics,
morality or personal hygiene. If you register a domain name and do not
live up to your responsbilities, the privilege of having a domain name, like
that of driving, can be revoked. That doesn't prevent you from using the
internet without one - or using postal mail or the telephone.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>The "crooks" to whom I referred are the people who seek to
destabilize the network for fun, and increasingly for profit. The identity
thieves, SPAM generators, virus senders, robonet creators, denial of service
attackers/extortion specialists, malicious trespassers, information thieves and
purveyors of fraud. All these activities violate the network's standards -
as well as criminal law in most jurisdictions. I don't think you are one
of these - nor should you be supporting a policy that makes it easier for them
to conduct their activites beyond any means of contact.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>I support individual privacy</STRONG>. I am
sensitve to the needs of those whose personal safety is at risk if their
location were disclosed, as well as of those (including myself) who simply value
privacy for its own sake. As a result, <STRONG>I support proxy services as
a means of safeguarding</STRONG> the <STRONG>privacy</STRONG> of those who want
to register domain names, <STRONG>while providing for stable network operations
and accountability</STRONG>. I do not propose to dictate that a particular
proxy service must be used. It is the registrant's choice whether to use
one, and which one to use. I only insist that proxy services, like
registrars, meet minimum service standards. Specifically, that the people
behind the proxy actually be contactable through them in a timely maner.
And, that a proxy service disclose the extent of privacy protection that it
provides. That's hardly putting people in jail. It's a pretty
minimal requrement.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=744485715-22072011>I<STRONG> support internet freedom of expression and
universal access</STRONG>, which are only possible when a stable network
exists. Those who <STRONG>choose</STRONG> to become part of the network's
operation - "even" by registering a domain name - assume the responsiblity and
the duty to meet the standards required for it to deliver those benefits to
everyone. If you can't discharge those responsibilites/duties, you can not
register a domain name. (But you can access the internet through
others.)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=744485715-22072011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=744485715-22072011>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>The draft recomendation under item 14 proposes that
registrants be allowed to provide no contact, or fraudlent contact
information. This is totally unacceptable. And for NCSG to endorse
this recomendation is irresponsible, for the reasons given here and in my
previous notes. <STRONG>It must not be put forth as
drafted.</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT><!-- Converted from text/plain format --></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=744485715-22072011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Other
issues of internet access/freedom are valuable, but should not be confounded
with this issue - please use another thread.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2><!-- Converted from text/plain format --></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Timothe Litt<BR>ACM Distinguished
Engineer<BR>---------------------------------------------------------<BR>This
communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,<BR>if any, on
the matters discussed.<BR><BR> </FONT> </P>
<P> </FONT> </P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> nuno.mgarcia@gmail.com
[mailto:nuno.mgarcia@gmail.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Nuno Garcia<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Friday, July 22, 2011 11:39<BR><B>To:</B> Timothe Litt<BR><B>Cc:</B>
NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ncsg-policy] Proposed
NCUC Comments on the WHOIS Review Team Discussion Paper<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Hi all, hi Timothe,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Allow me to disagree with some of the things you say bellow, mostly because
I think the comparison you chose is not adequate.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In the Information Society we are all trying to build, to prevent someone
from accessing information in the manner it is published is a violation of some
of the basic Human Rights (and I mean the ones from the charter of rights
published some 50 years ago by the UN).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Let me explain: some governenments and almost all companies publish
information that is critical to a responsible citizenship in the web, sometimes
only in the web, many times free on the web but payable everywhere else.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>To put it bluntly, in Europe, the access to Internet is view by legislators
as as important as the access to electricity, water and health.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Please don't get me wrong, I too am a strong advocate of responsible
citizenship. <BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Yet I am not ever in favou that this group takes on the responsabilities or
tries to impose or define responsabilities onto its represented elements. There
are authorities for that and that would be way out of our powers. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I propose that if that is the case, we build a charter of rights and
responsabilities for a responsible cyber-citizenship (or whatever name you find
more suitable).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Let me know explain why the example you chose is ill formed.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>If a driver misbehaves you may prevent him from driving, not as a
punishment, but as a mean to safeguard all other users of public roads.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Again, the government may prevent him from driving, but unless the offense
was a crime, it cannot prevent him from using public transportation, or
walking. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>What you propose is somehow similar to put the citizen in a jail where he
cannot move or has limited movements.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>On another aspect, the Internet (capital I), is a privilede, and a right. A
right that derives from the fact that the information it contains is public
domain. A right like reading a newspaper, or listening to the news and the music
in the radio or watching TV.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The Internet is the mean through which many of the rights described in the
Human Rights Charter are made available to us.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>And may I add, even risking to be one of the "crooks" you mention: we
should never take this discussion to the point where we define who is a crook
and who isn't. This is a very very very dangerous path and this is not the way
we should go. In no time we will be discussing religion, moral, and other
extremely personal and subjective things.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I hope to have contributed to this discussion.</DIV>
<DIV>Warm regards from Portugal,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Nuno Garcia</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2011/7/22 Timothe Litt <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:litt@acm.org">litt@acm.org</A>></SPAN><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>At the risk of becoming even less popular, let's see where
your analogy<BR>takes us:<BR><BR>Like driving, a network presence, including a
domain name, is a privilege<BR>and not an absolute right.<BR><BR>On the roads,
there are standards of behavior that are enforced for the<BR>safety and
convenience of all. And vehicles must have tags that identify<BR>the
owner/operator. An unidentified vehicle strewing sharp objects
(or<BR>explosives) down the road is a problem for everyone. While it
will<BR>eventually be stopped, the damage it causes is amplified by the amount
of<BR>time that it takes to identify it. So we have registration tags...
And<BR>those who drive sufficiently irresponsibly have their privilege
revoked -<BR>even if it means they lose their livelihood.<BR><BR>The internet
is a far more complex machine. With the privilege of becoming<BR>a part
of that machine come some responsibilities. Being able to
be<BR>contacted when, through error, malfunction, or malicious intent one has
a<BR>negative impact on the machine and/or its users is a basic
responsibility.<BR>And those "network operators" aren't (just) some big
anonymous corporation<BR>staffed by paid technicians; they're also individuals
with their one PC<BR>running their own mail/web/dns server - because they
don't want to entrust<BR>their personal data to the whims of some ISP.
Burdening "them" is burdening<BR>"us". And it's hard enough for
"us" to get "them" to take action against<BR>bad actors when we can identify
them - when we can't, it's virtually<BR>impossible.<BR><BR>Reachability via
proxy provides anonymity sufficient for protecting the<BR>privacy needs of
virtually anyone who needs to be part of the network. Just<BR>like the
vehicle whose registration address is a trust or corporation's<BR>attorney.
That scheme protects those with the need (or simply desire)
for<BR>privacy. The strength of the proxy can be adjusted to need -
providing it<BR>still provides access. So maybe you trust your
government-run ISP to proxy<BR>your contact information - or maybe you employ
an attorney in a state on the<BR>other side of the world with different
privacy laws and a private army. I<BR>don't care which - as long as I
can communicate thru the proxy to someone<BR>who can fix or diagnose a
problem. And as long as failure to<BR>respond/cooperate allows the
privilege of being part of the network to be<BR>terminated - with due process
(and lots of "reasonable" in the definitions).<BR><BR>Providing fraudulent/no
contact information is not consistent with being a<BR>good citizen.
Proxies provide an adequate alternative, with sufficient<BR>privacy
protection for those who need/desire it.<BR><BR>We (NCUC) can't be just about
"rights"; responsibilities are part of<BR>citizenship too. We should not
be advocating bad citizenship, or making it<BR>"officially acceptable".
It's bad for the network. It's bad for our<BR>credibility as an
organization of responsible people. It's even bad for<BR>good people who
think it in their interest to be unreachable - because they<BR>can lose domain
names, connectivity and operational help. The only people<BR>it's good
for are the crooks/bad actors. And NCUC should not be helping to<BR>make
their lives easier.<BR><BR>It's a choice to be part of the network, just as
it's a choice to become a<BR>licensed driver. Those who can't/won't
accept the rules of good citizenship<BR>can employ others to network - or
drive - for them. (Yes, bad/unreasonable<BR>rules can/should be fought.
This isn't one.)<BR><BR>We don't tolerate unlicensed drivers or
unregistered vehicles - or vandalism<BR>of others' vehicles and roads.
And while we allow proxy registration of<BR>vehicles, driver's licenses
have a verifiable name, contact address and<BR>photo. Perhaps that's a
sacrifice of some absolutist sense of "liberty",<BR>but it does make our
transportation system work (more or less). I don't<BR>think it
unreasonable to expect the same of those on the network of<BR>electrons as of
those on the network of roads.<BR>
<DIV class=im><BR>Timothe Litt<BR>ACM Distinguished
Engineer<BR>---------------------------------------------------------<BR>This
communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,<BR>if any, on
the matters discussed.<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
NCSG-NCUC [mailto:<A
href="mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</A>]
On Behalf Of<BR></DIV>Nicolas Adam<BR>
<DIV class=im>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 22:09<BR>To: <A
href="mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</A><BR>Subject:
Re: [ncsg-policy] Proposed NCUC Comments on the WHOIS Review
Team<BR>Discussion Paper<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>I guess in principle (or in theory, if you'd prefer) i would be
tempted to<BR>say that privacy trumps the pragmatics of efficient network
maintenance, but<BR>i'm not so sure that I get the whole technical challenge
of actually keeping<BR>the stuff working ... so....<BR><BR>If i may venture a
question, at the risk of exposing my ignorance: what if<BR>something needs be
dealt with and you can't reach a responsible person. In<BR>the end, depending
on the gravity of the situation of course, won't the<BR>unreachable party be
the one ultimately penalized by the stabilizing actions<BR>of network
operators? And if so, and granted that anonymity does indeed put<BR>pressure
on network operators, isn't the balance achieved one where
network<BR>operators have a hard(er) job but where anonymous registrants
mostly support<BR>the risk of potentially drastic actions by network operators
striving to<BR>keep things going?<BR><BR>Because frankly whois rules cannot be
made to easily protect every person<BR>protected by a restraining order, that
would be overreaching, in my opinion.<BR>Privacy, in a twisted but important
sense, give us a "right"<BR>to misbehave in my opinion. It's what gives value
to good behavior. Any<BR>system that makes it practically impossible to
misbehave (think cars with<BR>built-in police radars) sap the value of good
behavior right out of life. I<BR>believe this argument was made often ¯
whether from a moral, legal,<BR>political or economical point of view ¯ under
the rubric of "liberty".<BR><BR>Tentatively,<BR><BR>Nicolas<BR><BR>On
7/21/2011 8:17 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:<BR>> Although I support most of the
proposed comments, I disagree with<BR>> recommendation
14.<BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>