Re: [ga-sys] Registrants Charter - FREEDOMS - Part 2

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Very good summary Joanna. Thank you for all the trouble you went to.


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: <ga-sys@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ga-sys] Registrants Charter - FREEDOMS - Part 2


> ADVERSE EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS OF:-
>
> 1. CURRENT REGISTRAR'S ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT
> 2. TUCOWS PROPOSAL FOR REGISTRANT PRIVACY PROTECTION
> 3. UNSPONSORED TLD AGREEMENTS AND NEW VERISIGN AGREEMENT
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> RELEVANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE GA
>
> Danny Younger, Chair of the General Assembly of the DNSO (Domain Name
> Supporting Organization) has noted,
>
> "As the General Assembly is the only ICANN body that can currently
represent
> (to some degree) the interests of individuals, we have an obligation to
make
> sure that as an impacted party, individuals are well represented in
ongoing
> policy deliberations."
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg1077.html
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
>
> OUTREACH
>
> This document is a SUMMARY of debate on the GA mailing list GA-Sys.
>
> Comments received from members noted various difficulties and adverse
> effects arising from lack of protection of personal data when individuals,
> families and community organizations register Domain names. (see note 1).
>
> Suggestions were offered for ways in which personal data may be protected
> while complying with legal terms of Registrant agreements, (whichever of
the
> above may apply).(see note 2).
>
> However, none of the options suggested would normally be available without
a
> cost implication for the Registrant, (see note 3.) neither without
> compromising the technical stability of the Internet for the System
> Administrator, (see note 4.)
>
> While it was generally agreed that many difficulties relating to privacy
> issues arise from ignorance of new Registrants as to possible alternatives
> to disclosing personal data (see note 5), these are mainly available in
the
> US and no suggestions were received that provide both a satisfactory
> solution on a global scale (see note 6) and comply with EU Privacy laws as
> outlined in Part 1 of this document.
>
> NOTE 1.
> When the Registrant uses personal data as contact information, in effect,
> he/she is:-
>
> (i) Appointing him/herself as legal agent regarding service of process and
> can only acquire a domain name on the basis of agreeing to UDRP. UDRP is a
> legally binding process for the Registrant that exists to protect the
rights
> of trademark holders, but currently, there is no equivalent process to
> protect the free speech and other rights of individuals, families and
> community organizations in the registration and fair use of domain names
on
> the internet.
>
> (ii) Publishing their personal data in a public directory, the WHOIS
> database. Registries-Registrars are prevented from offering an unlisted,
> personal domain name service, as could reasonably be expected of the
> telecommunications industry with respect to unlisted, personal phone
> numbers.
>
> (iii) Relinquishing personal privacy and personal rights and protections
to
> obtain a domain name and being expected to do so in a manner that allows
> millions of people to gain immediate access to potentially sensitive data.
>
> (iv) The subject of a growing number of third party sales leads from the
> sale of personal data to third party profiteers. Registrants are agreeing
to
> provide more than a technical contact for a DN without knowing how that
data
> may be used. Information is being collected by Registries-Registrars for
> purposes other than billing, without information being provided to allow
the
> Registrant to make an informed decision.
>
> NOTE 2.
>
> 1). "The registrar accreditation agreement does not say that you have to
> supply "personal data" -- all you need to supply is the contact
information
> for a legal entity that is willing to assume responsibility for receiving
> legal notice and passing it on to you.  This is actually an opportunity
for
> some enterprising registrar to add this kind of escrow of legal
> responsibility as a value added service."
>
> Kent Crispin: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00016.html
>
> NOTE 3.
> The individual is adversely affected by the cost of purchasing additional
> services to protect privacy through the use of a PO Box, or by appointing
a
> third party agent for service of process.
>
> Available options in the US include PO Boxes, which are widely available
in
> the US at a cost of about $45.00 per annum for a small box, but these
would
> not be available in all territories.
>
> "Equally, MBE is a company called "Mail Boxes Etc", a private US
competitor
> to a Post Office branch office. In fact, many of them are PO branch
offices,
> by license. They are a general mail service with add-ons like; pre-sorting
> and filtering, mail forwarding service, UPS and FedEx delivery point (USPS
> will not accept FedEx and UPS parcels at a PO box, MBE will), Fax
send/rcv,
> etc. More importantly, an MBE address reads like a normal business
address.
> The sender does not know that they are sending to a PO box."
>
> Roeland Meyer: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00033.html
>
> Also, some Registrars may offer for profit escrow services. Registrars
> should clarify what these may be for the benefit of the GA at this time.
>
> NOTE 4.
> For the system administrator, indirect contact information reduces
> troubleshooting ability in the event of a network emergency such as denial
> of service attack.
>
> "The fundamental problem is that there is no way to predict which
SysAdmin,
> in which domain, will need that data. In the case of DDoS (denial of
> service) attacks, that information should really be fetched by automated
> scripts. uuid/passwd protocols would make those scripts unusable. We are
> talking about 10-20 cascaded lookups, with a number of different whois
> servers, in under a second here."
>
> Roeland Meyer: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00033.html
>
> NOTE 5.
>
> "Having the options and KNOWING about the options are two very different
> things. My suggestion AGAIN is that Registrars or a third party be charged
> with making sure every Registrant of a Domain Name knows their rights and
> options regarding a domain name."
>
> Chris McElroy: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00056.html
>
> NOTE 6>
>
> "We are talking about the *default* (which is likely to be used by the
vast
> majority). E.g. I note that voicemail systems are used *far* less
frequently
> in Germany (maybe also in the rest of Europe) than in the US, and that
> relatively few private persons have a PO box."
>
> Alexander Svensson:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00035.html
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> I will next compile input for WHOIS - conditions of use as PART 3.
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-sys@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-sys" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-sys@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-sys" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html