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

[nhklein]

Thanks, Nuno.


Norbert Klein
Cambodia


On 07/22/2011 10:38 PM, Nuno Garcia wrote:
> Hi all, hi Timothe,
>
> Allow me to disagree with some of the things you say bellow, mostly
> because I think the comparison you chose is not adequate.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Please don't get me wrong, I too am a strong advocate of responsible
> citizenship.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> Let me know explain why the example you chose is ill formed.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> What you propose is somehow similar to put the citizen in a jail where
> he cannot move or has limited movements.
>
> 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.
>
> The Internet is the mean through which many of the rights described in
> the Human Rights Charter are made available to us.
>
> 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.
>
> I hope to have contributed to this discussion.
> Warm regards from Portugal,
>
> Nuno Garcia
>
>
> 2011/7/22 Timothe Litt <litt at acm.org <mailto:litt at acm.org>>
>
>     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.
>

--
A while ago, I started a new blog:

...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/

continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
nhklein at gmx.net
Phnom Penh / Cambodia


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110722/eb26a19d/attachment-0001.html>