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

[Timothe Litt]

Nuno,
 
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.
 
I support full access to the internet by everyone, everywhere, any time - I
do not see how you reached the opposite conclusion.  
 
Requiring that people who choose to register a domain name are contactable
does not 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.  
 
If you register a domain name, you are becoming part of the network
infrastructure - 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 not 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.  
 
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.  
 
I support individual privacy.  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, I support proxy services as a means of safeguarding the privacy of
those who want to register domain names, while providing for stable network
operations and accountability.  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.
 
I support internet freedom of expression and universal access, which are
only possible when a stable network exists.  Those who choose 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.)
 
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.  It must not be put
forth as drafted.
Other issues of internet access/freedom are valuable, but should not be
confounded with this issue - please use another thread.


Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
---------------------------------------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.

  

  

 

  _____  

From: nuno.mgarcia at gmail.com [mailto:nuno.mgarcia at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Nuno Garcia
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 11:39
To: Timothe Litt
Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] Proposed NCUC Comments on the WHOIS Review Team
Discussion Paper


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>


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.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110722/b9291355/attachment-0001.html>