[ga] Re: [RAA-WG] [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vittorio and all,

  My response is interspersed below Vittorios, below...

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Derek Smythe ha scritto:
> > Hi
> >
> > Re: Open letter to ICANN
> >
> > http://www.badwhois.info/wp/?p=256
> >
> > Well worth a read to see what devastating effect registrars who ignore
> > reports of fake whois are having, also the general internet user
> > perception of ICANN.
>
> I think you are making a fundamental mistake here - you want a frauding
> website taken down by ICANN because it has incorrect Whois information.
> What you should want is rather that a frauding website is taken down by
> its country's police because it violates its country's laws.

 I in part share your position here Vittorio.  However ICANN could
at least put out a warning on it's web site of this error so that users
would have a reference point by which they could become more
better aware.  I agree with you to the extent that simply because
the Whois information is incorrect or fraudulent is not good reason
for a take down by ICANN or anyone else including the countries
legal authorities in which this domain is hosted.

>
>
> I would be very, very, very concerned if ICANN staff started to take
> decisions on whether a website is "criminal" or not, possibly just by
> having a quick look at its home page or because of blanket assumptions
> like those made in the complaint, such as "Site gathers personal
> information on insecure form. Legitimate businesses do not gather this
> type of information without security precautions".

Your last sentence is factually grossly inaccurate.  Google has for
years and ever sense it's conception gleaned with every search
a user might do, VERY personal information.  Of course some
may argue that the information Google does collect from it's
search engine operations is not of a personal nature.  However
that argument has already been substantially and legally proven
to be weak if not entirely false.

>
>
> I would also be very concerned if ICANN started to disable domain names
> on the grounds that "the postal code entered is incorrect".

  I would agree.  Postal codes change too often in some regions
in the US and elsewhere for this to be a significant consideration
for ANY sort of sanction.

>
>
> However, I concur with the letter that the WDPRS is a useless service
> that appears to have been deployed more as a token effort than for real.
> I think it should just be dropped - if people suspect that a website is
> doing fraud, they should call the police, not ICANN. If there is the
> need for cross-national cooperation, the various polices should just do
> their job and get organized to cooperate quickly and effectively. If
> there are countries that do not cooperate, then this is definitely a
> matter for national diplomacies to sort out - the US was able to impose
> its flavour of intellectual property regulation to the whole world
> through TRIPs and bilateral agreements, don't tell me that it is not
> strong enough to get cooperation on cybercrime.

  TRIPS and TRIPS plus is no longer the standard.  ACTA is or
soon will be.  So using TRIPS as a reference point for your argument
is fallacious and demonstrates that you are a bit behind the curve.
In any case, the rest of your argument here is basically sound.

>
>
> ICANN, in any case, should care more about Internet fraud and be more
> cooperative - but possibly by referring these (very valid and important)
> complaints to the appropriate law enforcement agencies depending on the
> countries involved. It could act as an information clearinghouse that
> could be very useful.

  Very much agreed except that ICANN staff members are not adequately
trained or technically enough aware to make such judgments.  But
once they become so, than such a approach is certainly viable and
perhaps useful.

>
>
> Finally - about the "general internet user perception of ICANN":
>
> The "general internet user perception of ICANN" is non-existing - users
> don't know that ICANN exists.

  Not factually accurate statement here Vittorio.  All of our members
are very well aware of ICANN's existence and have been for years.

>
>
> If you refer to "active users" and user groups, however, the perception
> is then much different according to the part of the world. For example,
> in Europe ICANN is usually perceived as an instrument to further the
> U.S. control over the Internet, for example by removing from the
> Internet the privacy that is guaranteed to European citizens by their
> national laws. And please don't be upset about this - it is not
> advocacy, it is just a fact that derives from cultural differences.

Good point I must admit...

>
>
> Ciao,
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAA-WG mailing list
> RAA-WG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/RAA-Policy

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827