<p dir="ltr">Me too! Kathy, please add my name! As a mother and individual creator, I do not want to connect my home address to anything visible! I should not have to put down a neutral work physical address to my content...</p>
<p dir="ltr">Gigi Johnson<br>
UCLA and Maremel Institute<br>
United States<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 13, 2015 3:10 PM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM> wrote:<br type='attribution'><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Hi Mikhail,<br />
<br />
I forward your support to Kathy.<br />
<br />
Thx!<br />
<div><br />
Nicolas<br />
<br />
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th><td>Re: Signatures sought: Timely Comments on Whois Accuracy
Pilot Study Report</td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th><td>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:47:55 +0000</td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th><td>Mikhail M. Komarov <a href="mailto:mkomarov@hse.ru"><mkomarov@hse.ru></a></td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th><td>Nicolas Adam <a href="mailto:nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM"><nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM></a></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
</div></div>
<div>Please count on me</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div><br />
With best wishes,
<div>Mikhail Komarov</div>
<div>National Research University Higher School of Econimics</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Moscow,Russia</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Sent from iPhone</div>
</div>
<div><br />
13 марта 2015 г., в 21:50, Nicolas Adam <<a href="mailto:nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM">nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM</a>>
написал(а):<br />
<br />
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>Please add my name also. Good work.<br />
<br />
Nicolas Adam<br />
<br />
<div>On 13/03/2015 2:11 PM, Kathy
Kleiman wrote:<br />
</div>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:center;line-height:normal" align="center">
<br />
</p>
<p align="left">Dear All,</p>
<p align="left">Attached please find an
important set of comments. They are to the Whois
Accuracy Pilot Study Report – by a group of researchers
at the
University of
Chicago
called NORC. Buried in this report turns out to be a
many issues important to us in the Whois domain name
registration databases – including the question of
postal addresses (should we be validating and publishing
the physical addresses of political dissident groups,
religious minorities, girls’ schools in areas where many
do not like girls education?
Is there a danger to be evaluated *before* we
undertake this new policy?)
</p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="left">Identity Validation is a
very open question as well, yet NORC seems ready to
start work in this area. I have written a set of
questions that say STOP – and let’s consider the policy
implications of these acts before we develop plans to
put them into effect. The comments are below (with a
full copy attached).
<br />
</p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="left"><b>They are due
tonight!
If you can sign on, please do. Please let me
know your name and/or organization and/or country.</b></p>
<p align="left"><b> </b></p>
<p align="left">Great tx to Stephanie
Perrin for editing! Here are some thoughts of members on
our Policy Committee:
</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" align="left">
-<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span>Kathy’s drafted, what I
believe to be, an excellent comment in response. – Amr
Elsadr</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" align="left">
-<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span>Great job Kathy!! I
support this document. -- Stephanie Perrin</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" align="left">
-<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span>Feel free to add my name
as endorsing the document – Ed Morris</p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p style="border:none;padding:0in" align="left">
Best and tx!!<br />
Kathy (Kleiman)<br />
</p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid 1pt;padding:0in 0in 1pt 0in">
</div>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:center;line-height:normal" align="center">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:'new roman'">Burying Extremely Divisive Policy
Questions in a Technical Implementation Report Written
by an ICANN Contractor is Improper and, in this Case,
Dangerous<br />
</span></p>
<p style="text-align:center" align="center"><br />
<span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:'new roman'"></span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">These are comments written in response to
the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report.
</span>Buried in this
Report – which purports to be an implementation report
of an ICANN Contractor (NORC/University of Chicago) --
are some of the most controversial and unsettled issues
in ICANN policy discussions and history. These issues
are the subject of deep and bitter divides over many
years of ICANN work, the subject of interest across the
world, and the focus of a series of explosive comments
in
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Singapore</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> when the ICANN Community began to realize
what was happening. <br />
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<br />
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"></span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">It is inappropriate in the extreme, for
ICANN policy issues to be buried in a ICANN Contractor’s
implementation report, and even further, deep in its
Appendix B,</span><i><span style="font-family:'times new roman'"> Next
Steps for the Development of the WHOIS Accuracy Report
System (ARS). </span>
</i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'new roman'"> </span>This
follows pages of study “methods and approach” language
and sample design which are obscure even to those who
follow Whois policy issues on a regular basis. We submit that
after the many years of heated controversy over this
topic, it is disingenuous at the very least to allow
this to happen policy debate to continue its development
in this manner.</p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">We are deeply concerned that ICANN Staff
has not flagged this Report, or this Comment Proceeding,
for what it appears to be – a process to seek permission
from the ICANN Community for the:</span></p>
<p style="text-indent:-0.25in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">a)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span></span><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">wholesale checking of the physical
addresses of online speakers across the world (whether
using domain names for political speech, personal
speech, or religious, ethnic or sexual minority
expression)</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> thus creating an unprecedented
inextricable link between a speaker and her physical
location, and </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.25in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> </span></p>
<p style="text-indent:-0.25in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">b)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span></span><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">the</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">
<b>radical new
concept of Identity Validation for each and every
domain name Registrant to the ICANN Community,
</b>a concept with inconceivable implications for
political, ethnic and religious minorities worldwide, as
well as entrepreneurs, emerging organizations and those
operating today without identities who seek to create
them.</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">We respectfully add the issues below to
this debate.</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.75in;text-indent:-0.5in;line-height:normal">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">I.<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span></span></b><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">ICANN has never been given a mandate for
Address Checking on a Massive Scale</span></b></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Although the Contractor’s Report seems to
suggest that the ICANN Community has approved the
massive checking of postal addresses in the existing
gTLD Whois databases, that is not the case.
</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.75in;text-indent:-0.25in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman'"><br />
A.<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">The Whois Review Team Final Report set the
standard of “contactability” -- reaching the domain name
registrant with questions and concerns – not absolute
accuracy of all data in the whois
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">The Current NORC Study (2014) and its
accompanying ICANN Staff Summary accompanying this
NORC’s Pilot Report misrepresent the WHOIS Policy Review
Team Final Report and its Recommendations.
</span>The goal of the
Whois Review Team was “Contactibility” and
“Reachability” of the Registrant. To this end WHOIS
Policy Review Team Final Report looked “holistically” at
the Whois record and did not seek the accuracy of each
and every element of a Registrant’s Whois record.
</p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
Specifically, the NORC Report of 2009/2010 (an earlier
report called the NORC Data Accuracy Study) created five
categories for ranking the data quality of a Whois
record:
<b>Full Failure</b>
(overwhelmingly inaccurate);
<b>Substantial
Failure</b> (most data inaccurate);
<b>Limited Failure</b>
(data to some degree present and considered useful);
<b>Minimal Failure</b>
(may benefit from additional information, but data
provided is accurate) and
<b>No Failure </b>(data
complete and accurate).
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<b><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
The Whois Review Team called for ICANN to
significantly reduce the number of “Full Failure”
and “Substantial Failure” Whois Records ---
Avoidance of “No Failure” was not a goal at all.
</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">As shared many times in meetings of the
Whois Review Team and members of the ICANN Community,
including the GAC, what the WHOIS Review Team
recommended was that Whois information be sufficiently
available and accurate for the Registrant to be reached
–for legitimate technical, administrative and other
questions: [Recommendation] “<b>6.
<span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">ICANN should</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.3pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt">take</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.1pt"> appropriate</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">measures</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">to</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.1pt">reduce </span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">the</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span>number<span style="letter-spacing:-0.25pt"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">WHOIS</span>
<span style="letter-spacing:-0.1pt">
registrations</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">that</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">fall</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.1pt">into</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">the</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.1pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">accuracy</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.1pt"> groups</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.1pt">Substantial
Failure</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">and</span>
<span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">
Full </span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.1pt">Failure</span><span style="letter-spacing:3.55pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">(as</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">defined</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.3pt">
</span>by<span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">the</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">NORC</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">Data</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.25pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">Accuracy</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> Study,</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">2009/10)</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.3pt">
</span>by<span style="letter-spacing:-0.3pt"> </span>50%<span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">within</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span>12<span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt"> </span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">months</span> and<span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span>by<span style="letter-spacing:-0.25pt"> </span>50%<span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">again</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.3pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">over</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">the</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.1pt">
</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">following</span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.2pt">
</span>12<span style="letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">months.</span></b><span style="letter-spacing:-0.05pt">”</span></span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
Thus, for the Whois Review Team, “No Failure” (full
accuracy of all fields) was <b>
<i>not the goal</i></b>;
</span>“contactability” and “reachability” of
Registrants was. </p>
<p style="text-indent:0.5in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
B. 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
The WHOIS Review Team Final Report noted that efforts
were already underway to improve accuracy and
contactibility of Registrants in the then-pending
“direct negotiations with Registrars on revisions to the
RAA.” These negotiations resulted in the 2013 RAA which
furthered the goal of reaching Registrants through
verified phone numbers and email addresses:
</span></p>
<p> 1.f :
“Verify:</p>
<p style="margin-left:85.5pt;text-indent:-85.5pt">
<a name="whois-accuracy.1.f.1"></a><span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span>i.<span style="font:7pt 'roman'"> </span>the
email address of the Registered Name Holder (and, if
different, the Account Holder) by sending an email
requiring an affirmative response through a tool-based
authentication method such as providing a unique code that
must be returned in a manner designated by the Registrar,
or</p>
<p style="margin-left:85.5pt;text-indent:-85.5pt">
<a name="whois-accuracy.1.f.ii"></a><span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span>ii.<span style="font:7pt 'roman'"> </span>
the telephone number of the
Registered Name Holder (and, if different, the Account
Holder) by either (A) calling or sending an SMS to the
Registered Name Holder's telephone number providing a
unique code that must be returned in a manner designated
by the Registrar, or (B) calling the Registered Name
Holder's telephone number and requiring the Registered
Name Holder to provide a unique code that was sent to the
Registered Name Holder via web, email or postal mail.</p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">As with the Final Report of the Whois
Review Team, the goal of the 2013 RAA was
“contactability” and “reachability” of the domain name
Registrant for technical or administrative questions by
third parties. </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in;text-indent:-0.25in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman'">C.<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Where Did the “No Failure” Standard Come
From for NORC – the Validation and Verification of Each
and Every Whois Element Without Policy Processes or
Assessments of the Risks and Harms? </span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Consistent with the Whois Review Team Final
Report and the 2013 RAA, we can understand the NORC
methodology and approach to checking email addresses and
telephone numbers – but postal address validation? </span>Where is the
underlying GNSO Policy driving this direction to NORC
from ICANN Staff?
</p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<b><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Where is the assessment of the risks
and benefits of updating the physical addresses of
hundreds of millions of political, personal,
religious, ethnic and sexual speakers – including
dissidents, minorities and those discriminated
against by the laws and customs of various regions?</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">
</span>Where is NORC
evaluating the wholesale and massive verification of
postal address in the existing gTLD WHOIS databases
without such an assessment?
How did ICANN Staff come to direct it? </p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
The NORC Contractor seems to have jumped from the
logical – checking email and phone – to checking
physical addresses.
</span>But this leap
from an open and undecided policy question to a mere
implementation issue should be disturbing to everyone in
the ICANN Community. What we know from history and the
most tragic of recent events is that speech and physical
location are a dangerous combination. </p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
When individuals armed with automatic rifles wish to
express their disagreement with the legal speech of a
satirical magazine, they find the location in
</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Paris</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> and kill writers, publishers and
cartoonists.
</span>When they want to
express contempt for those practicing another religion,
they bring their guns to kosher grocery stores in
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Paris</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> and synagogues in
</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Copenhagen</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">. Tracking down and beheading Christian
minorities is a horror of daily life in some parts of
the world. </span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
The UN Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948,
states:</span></p>
<ul type="disc"><li style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'new roman'">Everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.</span> </li></ul>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
It does not say that everyone must put their address on
that speech. Where, as here, the Internet has become the
major path of communication for that speech, the
requirement of a physical address for every speaker may
well violate the requirement of the right to speak and
the protection for that expression. </span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
Further, the validation of postal addresses represents a
major change of policy – one not mandated or requested
by the Whois Review Team, the 2013 RAA or by any
Policy-Development Team we know of.
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Who has evaluated the impact and dangers of
wholesale adoption of postal address validation of the
long-existing gTLD Whois databases– especially in a
world that has changed dramatically in the last few
years – where entire governments have risen and fallen,
where formerly free countries and regions are enslaved
by terrorist organizations and a new set of dictators?
While proxy/privacy registrations are available,
<b><i>they are a costly
luxury for many and completely unknown to others</i></b>.
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
The mandatory validation of the massive number of postal
addresses in the gTLD Whois database – as appears to be
the policy proposal buried between methodology and
sample sizes in the Contractor’s report -- will result
in the dangerous, harmful, even life-threatening
exposure of those using their domain names for nothing
more than communicating their ideas, concerns, political
hopes, and religious meetings via private streams of
domain name communications, such as on listservs and
email addresses, and more public resources including
websites and blogs. </span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
No policy we know has ever directed ICANN Staff to
instruct a Contractor to engage in massive Postal
Address Validation – and no policy development process
we know has studied, weighed, debated or valued the
enormous impact to speech and expression of going back
over 25+ years of domain names registrations to suddenly
“correct” the postal address and thereby expose battered
women’s shelters, women’s schools in Pakistan,
pro-democracy groups, family planning groups and LBGQT
locations worldwide.
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
If this is the policy we in ICANN choose to adopt in the
future (as we certainly have NOT adopted it already),
then it will require enormous amounts of preparation,
notice and warning to gTLD domain name
<br />
registrants on a global scale. </span>Absent that, we know
(without doubt or hyperbole) that ICANN will have blood
on its hands.</p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Overall, ICANN’s Contractor NORC seems to
have jumped into policy-making, not mere implementation.
</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.25in;text-indent:-0.5in;line-height:normal">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
II. </span></b><b><span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'roman'">
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Identity Validation – Really?
</span></b></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
Buried deep in Appendix B, of the Contractor’s Report,
behind “syntactic accuracy” and “operational accuracy”
is the explosive issue of “exploring accuracy from an
identity perspective” (page 45).
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">At no time has ICANN ever held a Policy
Development Processes on Identity Validation.
Accordingly, where does this guidance from ICANN to its
Contractor to explore identity validation implementation
come from? </span>For
those who attended the public Whois meeting in LA, this
issue certainly was not flagged in the discussion; for
those who attended the public meeting in Singapore, this
issue was introduced and IMMEDIATELY FLAGGED as
intensely controversial and divisive. </p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
Identity validation of those engaged in freedom of
expression, publishing and political discussion is a
deeply controversial prospect – and one with heartfelt
objection and opposition grounded in history and law.
</span>The <span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">United States</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">, for example, sought to be free of </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">England</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> in part because of the mandatory licensing
of its printing presses – and the arrest of all who
published objections to actions of the English crown.
</span>Pamphlets issued
without names and addresses are not just a cultural
right in the
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">US</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">, but a constitutional one.
</span><i>McIntyre
vs. </i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'new roman'">Ohio</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> Elections Commission, 514 </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'new roman'">U.S.</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> 334 (US Supreme Court, 1995). </span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1in;text-indent:-0.25in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman'"><br />
A.<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">The GAC asked for a weighing of the risks
and benefits
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">We note that the GAC has not issued policy
in this area.
</span>According to the
“Brief Overview” provided by ICANN as introduction to
this Contractor Report and this public comment period,
the GAC “asked for an assessment of the feasibility,
costs and benefits of conducting identity validation as
part of the development of the ARS.” </p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
Nowhere in this report do we see any assessment of the
costs, delays, risks and harms that might be incurred by
gTLD Registrants, Registrars and Registries worldwide if
identity validation were adopted. Nowhere do we even see
an analysis of how identity validation takes places,
what happens when a minority seeks to register, or when
a speaker must disclose and show her identification as
the cost of signing up for a domain name highlighting
family planning, women rights, or women’s education in
parts of the world not as conducive to these fundamental
rights and basic principles.
</span>Must she go through her father for this too? </p>
<p style="margin-left:1in;text-indent:-0.25in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman'"><br />
B.<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">ICANN has promised a policy making process.
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">In his response to the GAC on this issue,
Dr. Crocker noted concerns:</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-indent:0.5in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">The costs of operating the Accuracy
Reporting System are largely dependent</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">upon the number of WHOIS records to be
examined, as well as the level of</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">validation (syntactic, operational, or
identity). For example, the initial</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">responses to the ICANN RFP reveal that
identity validation services are both</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">costly and difficult to administer on a
global basis.
<b><i>There may also be
data</i></b></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<b><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">protection and privacy issues of
concern to the community when conducting</span></i></b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<b><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">extensive identity validation on WHOIS
records.</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"> Hence, the costs of</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">completing the development of Phase 3 will
be determined based on</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">engagement with the community to identify
the appropriate level of identity</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">validation for ICANN to conduct, as well as
the costs associated with</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">performing identity validation on a global
scale. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-02sep14-en.pdf"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-02sep14-en.pdf</span></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">, emphasis added.)</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
As always, policy development must proceed
implementation. We call on ICANN to take this discussion
out of the recesses of a Contractor report, and into the
light of the policy development process.
</span></p>
<p style="text-indent:0.5in;line-height:normal">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
III</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">. Wide Outreach Needed</span></b></p>
<a name="_GoBack"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">One thing the Whois Review Team did note in
its Final Review is the need for clear and concerted
outreach on issues that impact the Whois: “We found
great interest in the WHOIS policy among a number of
groups that do not traditionally participate in ICANN’s
more technical proceedings.
</span>They include the
law enforcement community, Data Protection
Commissioners, and the privacy community more
generally.”
The Whois Review Team’s recommendation
specifically call for active and concerted outreach to
these communities of its issue:</a>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Recommendation 3 -
Outreach
</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:11.5pt">ICANN should ensure that
WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community
outreach, including outreach to the communities
outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the
issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.
<br />
</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'new roman'"><br />
That has clearly not happened here – when so much of
substance is buried so deeply in the back of a report.
When will ICANN be undertaking clear, robust global
Outreach on these important freedom of expression and
privacy issues and implications?
</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1in;text-indent:-0.5in;line-height:normal">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
IV.<span style="font:7pt 'roman'"> </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Finally, let’s Add Policy Staff and
Freedom of Expression and Data Protection Expertise</span></b></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'new roman'">We ask that an ICANN Staff deeply
steeped in data protection and freedom of expression
laws and rights be brought on to work on the
development of these address and identity issues. We
understand that ICANN feels previous backgrounds of
its staffers do not limit their activities, but the
perception and reality of this issue would be
considered much more balanced if the ICANN Staffers of
the project hailed from an array of backgrounds and
had represented multiple sides of this issue in their
prior lives. </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1in;text-indent:-0.5in;line-height:normal">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'"><br />
V.<span style="font:7pt 'roman'"> </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'roman'">Conclusion</span></b></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'new roman'">We can’t bury wholesale physical
address checking and the new concept of identity
validation in the back of a Contractor Report.
</span>These are NOT
policies examined or endorsed by the whole of the
ICANN or even the GNSO communities, nor policies
evaluated yet by the whole of the ICANN Community. The
risks and benefits must be assessed before the
implementation is planned. </p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'new roman'"><br />
Signed, </span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'new roman'"><br />
MEMBERS OF THE NONCOMMERCIALS STAKEHOLDERS GROUP<br />
[name, and/or organization, and/or country]</span></p>
</blockquote>
<br />
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
</blockquote></div>