[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December

Wed Dec 14 19:54:21 UTC 2016

I agree with Greg Aaron that this possibility should be made available.  If
the poll can't be changed, then the group should be advised that there is a
specific "write-in" candidate, i.e.,

*“Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users
anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses
expressly prohibited by policy.”*

A specific "write-in" option will make it easier to assemble and evaluate
the responses, since it mitigates the issue of dealing with varying
wording, addition of factors and ambiguities, which come from individuals
crafting their own responses with similar intent.  It also clarifies that
"write-in" options are welcome.

Greg Shatan

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
>
> I suggest that you insert your comments below in the comment box for item
> 2 and leave the four choices for item 1 blank.  I just did a test
> submission and that will be allowed by Survey Monkey.
>
>
>
> We have a very short time for survey completion so to change the survey
> now would make the time even shorter.  We also have a very short time to
> prepare surveys after a WG call so they will not be perfect.  But hopefully
> they will facilitate more member participation than we normally get on the
> list.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* 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 14, 2016 2:28 PM
> *To:* Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com>
> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG
> Poll on Purpose - 13 December
>
>
>
> Thanks, Lisa.  No, your suggestion does not work for me, because.
>
> ·        The current options do not separate the concepts you mention.
> The current options all involve purpose AND access control, and all presume
> that access control to thin data is required.  We are not there yet.
>
> ·        The current options all present policy as something that can
> ONLY implemented via access control.   My option does not.
>
> ·        Since the goal of the poll is to “reflect the breadth of
> discussion on yesterday’s call”, and my option was discussed yesterday, it
> is logical to include it.
>
> ·        Soliciting opinion about options except the one that the
> community currently has in place seems like an odd choice.
>
>
>
> All best,
>
> --Greg
>
>
>
> *From:* Lisa Phifer [mailto:lisa at corecom.com <lisa at corecom.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:04 PM
> *To:* Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com>
> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on
> Purpose - 13 December
>
>
>
> Greg, the poll question was worded to separate future deliberation on
> authentication and any potential access controls from current deliberation
> on the concept of purpose and whether and how purpose would apply to
> policy.
>
>
>
> Would it address your concern if you gave in your rationale for not
> supporting any of the 4 options listed the explanation that you gave in
> your email?
>
>
>
> Lisa
>
> Sent from Lisa Phifer's iPhone
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Lisa:
>
>
>
> The poll is missing an option that describes the status quo, and the
> option came up in yesterday’s discussion.  That option could be stated:
>  “Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users
> anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses
> expressly prohibited by policy.”
>
>
>
> Can the poll be re-done with the addition option available?  I don’t want
> to choose any of the current options, and the option above is important
> since it describes the current situation.
>
>
>
> The poll doesn’t present this option.  Crucially, all the current choices
> say that data would be “accessible” only if users first meet a condition.
> For example, option “a” means that all users would be required to declare
> their use/intent (and therefore possibly their identity) before being
> allowed to access any data.  That’s the only way to deny access for
> “illegitimate purposes”.
>
>
>
> Currently, data is accessible in WHOIS to anyone who wants to look at it,
> and policy dictates that there are some things one should not then USE it
> for.  On the call, someone mentioned that these prohibited uses are
> mentioned in the RAA.  (In paragraph 3.3.5 to be precise.)  To put it
> another way: access to data is currently given to all, and the policy is
> that people shouldn’t then use the data for things like spamming.  The
> policy does not gate access to the data; the policy is a terns of use.
>
>
>
> On yesterday’s call,  Alan Greenberg and I made comments along the lines
> that it’s problematic to make all the users of WHOIS declare their
> intent/use before getting (on-PII) data.  It would make all legitimate
> users jump through hoops, and it wouldn’t be an enforceable policy anyway.
> (Did I paraphrase correctly, Alan?)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Greg
>
>
>
> RAA 3.3.5: “In providing query-based public access to registration data as
> required by Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, Registrar shall not impose terms
> and conditions on use of the data provided, except as permitted by any
> Specification or Policy established by ICANN. Unless and until ICANN
> establishes a different Consensus Policy, Registrar shall permit use of
> data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to:
> (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail,
> telephone, postal mail, facsimile or other means of mass unsolicited,
> commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data
> recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated,
> electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of any
> Registry Operator or ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably
> necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.”
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Lisa
> Phifer
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM
> *To:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose
> - 13 December
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the
> following charter question and sub-question:
>
>
>
>
> *2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should
> gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific
> purposes? *focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data."
>
> To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts
> that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll:
>
>      https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2
>
> Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this
> poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation.
>
> All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated
> and used as input to the next WG call.
>
> Best regards,
> Lisa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161214/94d0b9b0/attachment.html>