[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Question for Stephanie

Thu Dec 8 11:17:56 UTC 2016

Greg,

Again I am not trying to be confrontation, but I would respectfully disagree
with you on Thin Data never containing PII.

Take for example the very domain name that I am using on this email,
PALAGE.COM.  I believe it is possible for PII to be contained in the very
domain name itself.  

Take for example the following three domain name examples 

FirstName_SurName.CHRISTIAN

FirstName_SurName.HIV

FirstName_SurName.LGBT

I believe that any information that discloses a person's religious
affiliation, sexual orientation or medical condition, could be deemed PII in
certain jurisdictions.  I will to defer to Stephanie on this question,
however, I believe the answer is yes.

So NOW lets come to a point where I think "we" can find some agreement.

I believe that all Thin Data ( as I previously defined as all data elements
necessary for the minimum operation of a gTLD SRS - including status) should
be made available even if it does contain PII in the domain name itself of
the domain name of the name servers.

Domain Name: 

Registrar: 

Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 

Whois Server: 

Referral URL: 

Name Server: 

Name Server: 

Status: 

Updated Date: 

Creation Date: 

Expiration Date: 

Notwithstanding the fact that PII may be contained in the domain name or the
name server domain, I believe that this "thin" data is so necessary that it
MUST be disclosed and there is no situation that I can foresee where this
"thin" data can be withheld. Again however, I will let Stephanie answer this
question.  If we can all agree on this "thin" data question that could be an
important first building block toward consensus. 

Best regards,

Michael

From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gca at icginc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 7:30 PM
To: Michael D. Palage <michael at palage.com>; 'Gomes, Chuck'
<cgomes at verisign.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

BTW, much of the thin data in WHOIS is not even "collected" from or provided
by the registrant.   Much of it is generated automatically at the registry,
as a key registry function/responsibility.  When you register a domain:

*        the registry knows what registrar is creating the domain, and
records that and associates the registrar's IANA ID.  The registry then
displays those in WHOIS.

*        policy dictates what initial domain statuses there are. 

*        the registrar indicates how many years the registrant wants, but
the create/updated/expiration timestamps are generated and maintained by the
registry. 

*        Nameserver data is provided by the registrant.  (Unless he or she
didn't specify any, in which case the registrar often provides defaults.)

*        Domain statuses can be manipulated after the domain's out of AGP.
Depending on the status type and the situation, they can be added and
deleted by the registrant, the registrar, and/or by the registry.  

None of these thin  data fields are sensitive info AFAIK.

All best,

--Greg 

From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael at palage.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 5:04 PM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck' <cgomes at verisign.com <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com> >; Greg
Aaron <gca at icginc.com <mailto:gca at icginc.com> >; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] key concepts: say "contact data" when that is
what we mean

Chuck,

This is where a choice/orientation of words may have significant legal
distinction.

(My text) - All data associated with a domain name registration

(WG Text) - Registration Data

I am taking a much more expansive view of data associated with a domain name
registration to include data potentially NOT originally provided by a
registrant at the time of registration. Versus the potentially more
restrictive definition of only data provided by Registrant to Registrar at
the time of registration.

Take for example a .BRAND registry where licensees of that trademark owner
are permitted to register in that .BRAND TLD. As part of promoting awareness
to consumers, the registry operator (trademark owner) may desire to
include/append authoritative data associated with each licensees consumer
ranking (e.g. rating 1 thru 5 stars) so that consumers can better choose
which licensee to conduct business. Because this ranking may change over
time, the Registrant/Licensee is NOT in a position to provide this data as
it appears in the RDS/WHOIS output. Only the Registry Operator (trademark
owner) would be best positioned to include this authoritative data in the
RDS/Whois output.

The point I am trying to make is that innovation has only just begun in
connection with the new gTLD expansion. While I respect the rights of
privacy advocates to safeguard registrant PII, I do not want broad policy
statements to have unintended consequences in impeding future innovation.

Best regards,

Michael

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 4:34 PM
To: michael at palage.com <mailto:michael at palage.com> ; gca at icginc.com
<mailto:gca at icginc.com> ; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
<mailto: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 Mike.  I am glad to see this discussion going on in advance of
considering the first users/purposes question: "Should gTLD registration
data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes?"

Chuck

From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael at palage.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 4:13 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com> >;
gca at icginc.com <mailto:gca at icginc.com> ; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] key concepts: say "contact data"
when that is what we mean

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>
[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 <mailto:gca at icginc.com> ; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
<mailto: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/20161208/1e4dee4d/attachment.html>