[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )

[Gomes, Chuck]

As I continue to say over and over again:

*         This is all great discussion but it is way ahead of where we are.

*         We will have to repeat it later.

*         It detracts from our current tasks and takes time away from getting them completed.

Here are the tasks that the WG should be focusing on right now:

1.       Complete the Doodle poll about a possible face-to-face WG meeting at ICANN 57 in Hyderabad if you haven't already done so: http://doodle.com/poll/zezbbghrmwavtdma

2.       Review the D3Triage document with focus on ensuring that pre-requisites/dependencies and assigned phase are correct

3.       Volunteer to develop use cases of your own interest to be presented during next week's meeting using the template provided; note that we only need one or two of these this week but others could be used in the coming weeks.

Please focus on our current tasks.

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 9:35 AM
To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )

In response to my comments of the ICANN scope of remit within DNS and the RDS Volker Greimann wrote:

I disagree that the problem of how to authenticate law enforcement requests should be dumped at the doorstep of contracted parties. The policy must be complete and give structure to this issue.
I agree with the sense of Volker's position and did not mean that ICANN should or can wash it hands clean of the process of defining how to authenticate law enforcement requests, but it should not try to go it alone on just DNS data. Here, I would separate  out the "how to authenticate" from the rest of the RDS discussion. I would suggest that it be carried out in a wider multistakeholder discussion where ICANN is an interested stakeholder working with interested constituencies (human rights, etc.) governments and law enforcement officials, working to fashion a policy that probably results in multilateral agreements.

There will not be a authentication process for DNS data that is separate from the authentication process for data elsewhere in the Internet and digital ecosystem. As current case after case demonstrates, law enforcement access to DNS related data is only a small slice of the data now being requested. The trans-border nature of data means that multilateral agreements are inevitable and the only path to a sustainable (and hopefully sane) policy.

Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/CSIH
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160721/1d55e473/attachment.html>