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

[Gomes, Chuck]

You are getting way ahead of where we are at.

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 5:30 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )



On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 08:04:17PM +0530, Sivasubramanian M wrote:

> ICANN Coordinates the allocation of Names and Numbers, by policies and
> programs​. "Rule" may be a strong word here, slipped in from the question
> that I was answering, it is coordination, and the coordination happens by
> agreements. If it coordinates the allocation, it ought to consider itself
> responsible for all aspects concerning how fairly these resources are
> allocated, and ICANN especially ought to pay attention to the aspects
> related to DNS data.

I think you will discover that quite a few of us spent a lot of time
during the CCWG-Accountability work ensuring that the Mission was
quite clear that ICANN does not "coordinate" the DNS beyond the root
zone and certain subordinate policies in zones delegated according to
contracts with ICANN.  ICANN most definitely does not coordinate the
allocation of names worldwide.

​It does. Indirectly. By allocation of Top Level Domains for worldwide registration of names.​


The _whole point_ of the DNS is to
prevent such centralization in the interests of ensuring
administration is local (loosely speaking, network topologically) to
the affected parties.

​I have suggested nothing here to imply that ICANN's coordination of Names, on the commercial side, should get any more detailed than decisions on TLDs and their delegation. But ICANN being the allocating body for Names on a Top Level, becomes responsible for the decision of allocation of the TLD, and (notionally) becomes responsible for ensuring that the Registry in turn ensures fairness worldwide. The Registrant Data, as the point discussed here, becomes ICANN's responsibility. If anything goes wrong, as a Registrant, I would be right in asking ICANN "my .com registration data has been abused. Why didn't you ensure that the .com Registry would keep my data safe with itself and with its Registrars?" ICANN can not possibly say, "we didn't do it, a reseller under a Registrar under the Registry did it, don't ask us"​.

One that occurred to me is to harmonize the method of collecting Registrant data and harmonize policies for release of data to Law and Order agencies, and in a way empower the DNS community to say "No" where they consider the request or directive excessive. This I have posted in a different thread. The initial thought was to centralize Registrant Data, which could be modified to be that of a system of keeping the sensitive elements of the Registrant data decentralized with the Registries, but with uniform policies across the world.  Agreed, we need to make sure that any changes to the process of handling and storing Registrant data does not alter the decentralized model. There are apparent conflicts, but reconcilable.



Sivasubramanian M



> By your question, "what rules does ICANN make about DNS", are you implying
> that DNS is free for all, in a commercial sense?

Yes, actually, it is, and that's a feature and not a bug.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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/20160725/ed9fe6cf/attachment.html>