David Silber's response was eye-opening. I hope his attitude is more widely shared. On 25 June 2014 07:48, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Wow, this is policy genius in action. > > Have we invited Elliot to the privacy event today? Has the event been > brought to the attention of Domain Incite and similar? > > Best > > Bill > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:55 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > INteresting article. Just a reminder, tomorrow morning at 8am in the > Sandringham room, the EWG discusses its report again. And privacy > afternoon is from 3-6 in the Sovereign room. > > http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks > > A million domains taken down by email checks > <http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks> > Kevin Murphy <http://domainincite.com/about>, June 24, 2014, 14:34:25 > (UTC), Domain Registrars > <http://domainincite.com/category/domain-registrars> > > *Over 800,000 domain names have been suspended since the beginning of the > year as a result of Whois email verification rules in the new ICANN > Registrar Accreditation Agreement.* > > That’s according to the Registrars Stakeholder Group, which collected > suspension data from registrars representing about 75% of all registered > gTLD domain names. > > The actual number of suspended domains could be closer to a million. > > The 2013 RAA requires registrars to verify the email addresses listed in > their customers’ Whois records. If they don’t receive the verification, > they have to suspend the domain. > > The RrSG told the ICANN board in March that these checks were doing more > harm than good > <http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-good> > and today Tucows CEO Elliot Noss presented, as promised, data to back up > the claim. > > “There have been over 800,000 domains suspended,” Noss said. “We have > stories of healthcare sites that have gone down, community groups whose > sites have gone down.” > > “I think we can safely say millions of internet users,” he said. “Those > are real people just trying to use the internet. They are our great > unrepresented core constituency.” > > The RrSG wants to see contrasting data from law enforcement agencies and > governments — which pushed hard for Whois verification — showing that the > RAA requirement has had a demonstrable benefit. > > Registrars asked at the Singapore meeting in March that law enforcement > agencies (LEA) be put on notice that they can’t ask for more Whois controls > until they’ve provided such data and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade said > <http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-good> > “It shall be done by London.” > > Noss implied that the majority of the 800,000 suspended names belong to > innocent registrants, such as those who had simply changed email addresses > since registering their names. > > “What was a lovely political win that we said time and time again in > discussion after discussion was impractical and would provide no benefit, > has demonstrably has created harm,” Noss said. > > He was received with cautious support by ICANN board members. > > Chair Steve Crocker wonder aloud how many of the 800,000 suspended domains > are owned by bad guys, and he noted that LEA don’t appear to gather data in > the way that the registrars are demanding. > > “We were subjected, all of us, to heavy-duty pressure from the law > enforcement community over a long period of time. We finally said, ‘Okay, > we hear you and we’ll help you get this stuff implemented,’”, he added. > “That creates an obligation as far as I’m concerned on their part.” > > “We’re in a — at least from a moral position — in a strong position to > say, ‘You must help us understand this. Otherwise, you’re not doing your > part of the job’”, he said. > > Chehade also seemed to support the registrars’ position that LEA needs to > justify its demands and offered to take their data and concerns to the LEA > and the Governmental Advisory Committee. > > “They put restrictions on us that are causing harm, according to these > numbers,” he said. “Let’s take this back at them and say, hey, you ask for > all these things, this is what happened.” > > “If you can’t tell me what good this has done, be aware not to come back > and ask for more,” he said. “I’m with you on this 100%. I’m saying let’s > use the great findings you seem to have a found and well-package them in a > case and I will be your advocate.” > > Director Mike Silber also spoke in support of the RrSG’s position. > > “My view is if what you are saying is correct, the LEA’s have blown their > credibility,” he said. “They’re going to have to do a lot of work before we > impose similar disproportional requirements on actors that are not proven > to be bad actors.” > > So what does this all mean for registrants? > > I don’t think there’s any ongoing process right now to get the Whois > verification requirements overturned — that would require a renegotiation > of the RAA — but it does seem to mean demands from governments and police > are going to have to be much more substantiated in future. > > Noss attempted to link the problem to the recommendations of the Whois > Expert Working Group (EWG), which propose a completely revamped, > centralized Whois system with much more verification > <http://domainincite.com/16855-whois-killer-is-a-recipe-for-a-clusterfuck> > and not much to benefit registrants. > > To paraphrase: if email verification causes so much harm, what harms could > be caused by the EWG proposal? > > The EWG was not stuffed with LEA or governments, however, so it couldn’t > really be characterized as another set of unreasonable demands from the > same entities. > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: > OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > > > > >