.CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public comments

[Marc Perkel]

I agree with Adam, I too have a problem with that part:

*"Law enforcement and trademark protection representatives will be 
granted full access to puntCAT database. An IP white list will be 
established to provide full access to gather all data associated with 
any concrete domain name." *

First - the Internet is a 0 dimensional universe that is not owned by 
any one nation. So what does the word "Law Enforcement" mean? American 
only - or ANY country. Seems to me that it would have to mean any 
country as all countries are theoretically equal on the Internet.

As the founder of the Church of Reality I'm someone who would be put to 
death in many countries of the world and I can not be subject to "law 
enforcement" of countries like Iran. The same is true to a lesser degree 
of all non-Islamic religions and possibly some version of Islam. I can 
not be subject to nations who consider my religions blasphemy.

As to trademark protection - I own the US Registered Trademark on the 
word "REALITY". *Serial Number:*78735626.

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/trademark/

if I had special trademark enforcement powers owning the trademark on 
REALITY, well, I really don't think you should give me that kind of 
power. If I control REALITY on the Internet - wouldn't that make me a 
deity? I don't think that's a good idea.

ICANN and DNS is not about law enforcement, trademark, or intellectual 
property protection. It's not about protecting people's money. Our 
mission is to make the Internet work and nothing more.  These issues are 
outside the scope of our mission and we need to draw a hard bright line 
and tell these people no.


On 1/21/2012 6:49 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> Very sharp cursory look. I also think those points need be raised.
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 1/21/2012 12:33 PM, Timothe Litt wrote:
>> I had a cursory look at the supporting documents for this.
>> (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/puntcat-cat-request-05oct11-en.pdf) 
>>
>>
>> In general, I think that the request moves practice in the right 
>> direction.
>>
>> However, I am somewhat concerned by the following language:
>>
>> "Law enforcement and trademark protection representatives will be 
>> granted
>> full access to
>> puntCAT database. An IP white list will be established to provide full
>> access to gather all
>> data associated with any concrete domain name."
>>
>> ("IP" clearly means "IP address" if you read the whole document.)
>>
>> A) What is a "trademark protection representative", and why are they 
>> granted
>> equal access to the privacy-protected data of natural persons as law
>> enforcement?
>>
>> B) Why can't they use the webform proxy for contacting the domain 
>> owner, or
>> present a case to law enforcement for access if the owner is 
>> unresponsive?
>>
>> C) It also seems that both have the ability to troll thru the 
>> database at
>> will for any purpose, without cause, judicial review or documenting 
>> when and
>> why private information is accessed.
>>
>> D) Note that this ability is based on IP address - not an X.509 
>> certificate,
>> password or any other user-specific security mechanism.  Hence is is
>> susceptible to IP spoofing, and access is not traceable to the 
>> individual
>> accessing the data.  This makes it difficult (impossible?) to hold 
>> anyone
>> accountable for misuse of these privileges.
>>
>> E) Also, disclosure is described as "opt-in (default option)" - as the
>> following language in the document makes clear, privacy is not the 
>> default
>> and must be requested.  This is not consistent with maximizing 
>> privacy, and
>> potentially introduces race conditions if establishing the privacy 
>> option is
>> not atomic with registering a domain.  For natural persons, privacy 
>> should
>> be the default.
>>
>> Thus, although this is a positive step in the direction of protecting 
>> the
>> privacy of natural persons, there is room for improvement.
>>
>> I leave to those more experienced in the politics of ICANN the political
>> question of whether to take what's on offer now and fight the next 
>> battle
>> later, or to raise these points in our comment on the current request.
>>
>>
>> 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-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf 
>> Of Wendy
>> Seltzer
>> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 11:50
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for 
>> public
>> comments
>>
>> .CAT proposes to revise its Registry agreement to support withholding of
>> some WHOIS data by individuals who opt out. It will not offer this 
>> opt-out
>> to legal persons.
>>
>> I propose that NCSG support this amendment, with a simple: "NCSG 
>> supports
>> the availability of WHOIS privacy options for natural persons.
>> Accordingly, we support puntCAT's proposed amendment."
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [council] .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public 
>> comments
>> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:08:05 -0800
>> From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen at icann.org>
>> To: council at gnso.icann.org<council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm
>> .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes
>>
>> Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 20 January2012
>>
>> Categories/Tags: Contracted Party Agreements
>>
>> Purpose (Brief):
>>
>> ICANN is opening today the public comment period for the Fundacio 
>> puntCAT's,
>> request to change its Whois according to EU data protection 
>> legislation. The
>> public comment period will be closed on 3 March 2012.
>>
>> The .cat registry, submitted a Registry Service Evaluation Process
>> (RSEP) on August 2011.
>>
>> At this time, ICANN has conducted a preliminary review in accordance 
>> with
>> the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and process set forth at
>> http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html. ICANN's preliminary 
>> review
>> (based on the information provided) did not identify any significant
>> competition, security, or stability issues.
>>
>> The implementation of the request requires an amendment to the .cat 
>> Registry
>> Agreement signed 23 September 2005. This public forum requests comments
>> regarding the proposed amendment.
>> Public Comment Box Link:
>> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/cat-whois-changes-18jan12-en.htm
>>
>> Glen de Saint Géry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120121/a208b0ab/attachment-0001.html>