[ncsg-policy] Proposed NCUC Comments on the WHOIS Review Team Discussion Paper

[Beau Brendler]

+1 (but you already knew that)

-----Original Message-----
>From: Timothe Litt <litt at ACM.ORG>
>Sent: Jul 22, 2011 6:17 AM
>To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] Proposed NCUC Comments on the WHOIS Review Team Discussion Paper
>
>At the risk of becoming even less popular, let's see where your analogy
>takes us:
>
>Like driving, a network presence, including a domain name, is a privilege
>and not an absolute right.
>
>On the roads, there are standards of behavior that are enforced for the
>safety and convenience of all.  And vehicles must have tags that identify
>the owner/operator.  An unidentified vehicle strewing sharp objects (or
>explosives) down the road is a problem for everyone.  While it will
>eventually be stopped, the damage it causes is amplified by the amount of
>time that it takes to identify it.  So we have registration tags...  And
>those who drive sufficiently irresponsibly have their privilege revoked -
>even if it means they lose their livelihood.
>
>The internet is a far more complex machine.  With the privilege of becoming
>a part of that machine come some responsibilities.  Being able to be
>contacted when, through error, malfunction, or malicious intent one has a
>negative impact on the machine and/or its users is a basic responsibility.
>And those "network operators" aren't (just) some big anonymous corporation
>staffed by paid technicians; they're also individuals with their one PC
>running their own mail/web/dns server - because they don't want to entrust
>their personal data to the whims of some ISP.  Burdening "them" is burdening
>"us".  And it's hard enough for "us" to get "them" to take action against
>bad actors when we can identify them - when we can't, it's virtually
>impossible. 
>
>Reachability via proxy provides anonymity sufficient for protecting the
>privacy needs of virtually anyone who needs to be part of the network.  Just
>like the vehicle whose registration address is a trust or corporation's
>attorney.  That scheme protects those with the need (or simply desire) for
>privacy.  The strength of the proxy can be adjusted to need - providing it
>still provides access.  So maybe you trust your government-run ISP to proxy
>your contact information - or maybe you employ an attorney in a state on the
>other side of the world with different privacy laws and a private army.  I
>don't care which - as long as I can communicate thru the proxy to someone
>who can fix or diagnose a problem.  And as long as failure to
>respond/cooperate allows the privilege of being part of the network to be
>terminated - with due process (and lots of "reasonable" in the definitions).
>
>Providing fraudulent/no contact information is not consistent with being a
>good citizen.  Proxies provide an adequate alternative, with sufficient
>privacy protection for those who need/desire it.  
>
>We (NCUC) can't be just about "rights"; responsibilities are part of
>citizenship too.  We should not be advocating bad citizenship, or making it
>"officially acceptable".  It's bad for the network.  It's bad for our
>credibility as an organization of responsible people.  It's even bad for
>good people who think it in their interest to be unreachable - because they
>can lose domain names, connectivity and operational help.  The only people
>it's good for are the crooks/bad actors.  And NCUC should not be helping to
>make their lives easier.
>
>It's a choice to be part of the network, just as it's a choice to become a
>licensed driver.  Those who can't/won't accept the rules of good citizenship
>can employ others to network - or drive - for them.  (Yes, bad/unreasonable
>rules can/should be fought.  This isn't one.)
>
>We don't tolerate unlicensed drivers or unregistered vehicles - or vandalism
>of others' vehicles and roads.  And while we allow proxy registration of
>vehicles, driver's licenses have a verifiable name, contact address and
>photo.  Perhaps that's a sacrifice of some absolutist sense of "liberty",
>but it does make our transportation system work (more or less).  I don't
>think it unreasonable to expect the same of those on the network of
>electrons as of those on the network of roads.
>
>Timothe Litt
>ACM Distinguished Engineer
>---------------------------------------------------------
>This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
>if any, on the matters discussed. 
>
>  
>-----Original Message-----
>From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
>Nicolas Adam
>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 22:09
>To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] Proposed NCUC Comments on the WHOIS Review Team
>Discussion Paper
>
>I guess in principle (or in theory, if you'd prefer) i would be tempted to
>say that privacy trumps the pragmatics of efficient network maintenance, but
>i'm not so sure that I get the whole technical challenge of actually keeping
>the stuff working ... so....
>
>If i may venture a question, at the risk of exposing my ignorance: what if
>something needs be dealt with and you can't reach a responsible person. In
>the end, depending on the gravity of the situation of course, won't the
>unreachable party be the one ultimately penalized by the stabilizing actions
>of network operators? And if so, and granted that anonymity does indeed put
>pressure on network operators, isn't the balance achieved one where network
>operators have a hard(er) job but where anonymous registrants mostly support
>the risk of potentially drastic actions by network operators striving to
>keep things going?
>
>Because frankly whois rules cannot be made to easily protect every person
>protected by a restraining order, that would be overreaching, in my opinion.
>Privacy, in a twisted but important sense, give us a "right" 
>to misbehave in my opinion. It's what gives value to good behavior. Any
>system that makes it practically impossible to misbehave (think cars with
>built-in police radars) sap the value of good behavior right out of life. I
>believe this argument was made often ― whether from a moral, legal,
>political or economical point of view ― under the rubric of "liberty".
>
>Tentatively,
>
>Nicolas
>
>On 7/21/2011 8:17 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:
>> Although I support most of the proposed comments, I disagree with 
>> recommendation 14.