[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] key concepts: say "contact data" when that is what we mean

[Carlton Samuels]

+1 to Greg's approach.

Not to make too fine a point, the EWG categorised registration data by
supplier as well in an effort to make the case for restrictions easier to
glean. Certainly easier to follow but did not have the effect some of us
were expecting.  The precondition was to accept the rationale for
collecting and curating the data in the first place.

I am yet persuaded that most of this data is not contentious and the call
for consensus on those categories and their elements should be exectued
now.  Then spend the time arguing about the relatively fewer contentious
pieces towards a sensible conclusion on collection, storage and access.

-Carlton


==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com> wrote:

> Speaking of key concepts…  people often say “registration data” when they
> really mean “contact data.”   Being plain and specific here can help
> discussion in our group.  The concept will come up in next week’s
> discussion.
>
>
>
> There are basically two kinds of “registration data”.  The first is called
> the* THIN DATA*.  This is the basic data about a domain name
> registration: the domain name, the sponsoring registrar name and ID, the
> domain’s status(es) , created-updated-expiration dates, and nameservers.  (
> https://whois.icann.org/en/what-are-thick-and-thin-entries )  This data
> is factual, accurate, is not personally identifiable, and I think is
> completely noncontroversial.
>
>
>
> The second kind of registration data is *CONTACT DATA* – contact names,
> postal and email addresses, phone numbers.   Contact data raises issues of
> privacy and data protection.  Contact data can be (and regularly is)
>  inaccurate because it’s ultimately supplied by the registrants.  When
> people talk about “registration data accuracy” and “registration data
> validation” they are really talking about the accuracy of *CONTACT DATA*,
> not all “registration data.”
>
>
>
> In the coming discussions, one approach could be: There are good reasons
> to publish the thin data … is there any compelling reason *not* to
> publish it?   If we can take care of this low-hanging fruit, we will solve
> part of the puzzle and we can concentrate on the issues around contact
> data.  This is not a proposal to publish thin data only.  It’s an attempt
> to disentangle concepts and find a way forward.  Not all data is the same,
> so let’s stop treating all data the same.  We may not have to iterate
> repeatedly about thin data.
>
>
>
> Even the EWG’s language wasn’t always clear and specific in this area.
> Here’s the question we will begin with next week:
>
>
>
> *Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for
> specific purposes?*
>
> *“The EWG unanimously recommends abandoning today’s WHOIS model of giving
> every user the same entirely anonymous public access to (often inaccurate)
> gTLD registration data. Instead, the EWG recommends a paradigm shift to a
> next-generation RDS that collects, validates and discloses gTLD
> registration data for permissible purposes only.*
>
> *While basic data would remain publicly available, the rest would be
> accessible only to accredited requestors who identify themselves, state
> their purpose, and agree to be held accountable for appropriate use.”*
>
> What the EWG really meant was:
>
> ·         Give public, anonymous access to the THIN data.  (“Basic data”
> as the EWG called it.)
>
> ·         Don’t give every user the same anonymous public access to
> (“often inaccurate”) gTLD CONTACT DATA.
>
> ·         Shift to an RDS that collects, validates and discloses gTLD
> CONTACT DATA for permissible purposes only.
>
>
>
> All best,
>
> --Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************
>
> Greg Aaron
>
> Vice-President, Product Management
>
> iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com
>
> mobile: +1.215.858.2257 <(215)%20858-2257>
>
> **********************************
>
> The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential
> and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
> message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your
> computer.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20161207/3bea1d6b/attachment.html>