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

Wed Dec 7 21:13:01 UTC 2016

Chuck,

I appreciate Greg's historical context of Whois data primarily being for
purposes of "contacting" the registrant of a domain name using those data
fields with personally identifying information. However, I think
introducing/relying upon the concept of "CONTACT DATA" as proposed by Greg
while well intentioned will only lead to greater confusion.

First Greg acknowledges that not ALL data other than the thin technical data
falls within his CONTACT DATA definition (trademark, nexus, reseller, etc).
So we begin today with a model that is less than 100% inclusive and will
likely become less inclusive as more innovative uses of the RDS and Whois
data are created. 

Second, the use of this terminology ignores the reality in the marketplace
that Registrant data is widely relied upon to make legal determinations
(i.e. ownership, authority to transfer a domain name, infringement, etc.).
When law enforcement is trying to shut down a counterfeit operation, they
are not looking to use this data to 'contact" the registrant, but instead
'arrest" him/her.

I understand how the term "contact data" provides a certain comfort level to
Stephanie and the valid concerns she has.  However, as someone that is
involved in making legal determinations regarding the ownership rights
(property/service contract) concerning domain name registrations on a
regular basis, this  concept of "Contact Data" will just lead to a lot of
confusion.

The whole legal construct (private contractual rights) upon which the domain
name system is based recognizes the Registrant and the Registrant Data that
it provides. In fact ICANN's Whois web page makes the following statement:
"ICANN's WHOIS Lookup gives you the ability to lookup any generic domains,
such as "icann.org" to find out the registered domain owner." (emphasis
added)  Again this data by ICANN's own admission is relied upon to make
"ownership" decisions NOT mere "contact" information.

So I think we stick to one of the first things I learned as a young
engineer. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS)

Thin Data - the minimum technical data necessary for a registry to perform
its function as a registry operator in a shared registry system.

Thick Data - All data associated with a domain name registration made
available via Whois/RDS, which may include Personal Identifying Information
(PII)

Again I appreciate the constructive efforts of Greg, Stephanie and others,
but I just do not see this concept scaling meaningfully. 

Best regards,

Michael

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 10:20 AM
To: gca at icginc.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] key concepts: say "contact data" when that is
what we mean

Thanks Greg for the helpful suggestion.  I have one question for you and
others: If we exclude THIN DATA, is there any data we will need to consider
that could not be accurately classified as CONTACT DATA.  If not, then
dividing data into these two categories should suffice.

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:55 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] key concepts: say "contact data" when
that is what we mean

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

**********************************

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20161207/c3915117/attachment.html>