.CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public comments

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Indeed worrisome -- just granted with a simple request, no due legal process? With this the proposed data protection of natural persons becomes cosmetic.

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone

On 22/01/2012, at 02:16, Marc Perkel <marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG> wrote:

> 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/20120122/4043c7d7/attachment-0001.html>