[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Use cases: Fundamental, Incidental, and Theoretical

[benny at nordreg.se]

NL.EU.ORG Do not register domains, its a subdomains and the domain which are counting for us in this WG are eu.org anything else are the owner of EU.ORG’s responsibility

This is a good example of things / examples which shall be rejected..


--
Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen

Benny Samuelsen
Registry Manager - Domainexpert

Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
IANA-ID: 638
Phone: +46.852529100
Direct: +47.32260201
Mobile: +47.40410200

> On 27 Jul 2016, at 15:24, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> [ Apologies for the length. I need get back to my actual job, so don't
>  have time to make this shorter. ]
> 
> I propose that:
> 
> * We should have a way to reject some use cases
> * Part of that motivation should be whether it is actually needed for
>  DNS
> 
> This is not important now, but it will be at some point. It might be
> helpful to keep this in mind as we work on use cases.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> My thinking is that we have three basic types of use cases:
> 
> Primary
> ======= 
> These use cases are necessary to actually be able to use the DNS
> itself. There are very few of these - almost all around configuring
> data that is needed for the DNS protocol to work.
> 
> For example, you can get a domain in NL.EU.ORG with only an e-mail
> address, and this is not published anywhere. (Even the e-mail address
> is not strictly necessary. One could set up a system based strictly on
> login to a web page.)
> 
> The recent thought-experiment (aborted because it is not in our
> work plan) about finding the minimum set of data needed to run the DNS
> would have been a good start for defining these use cases.
> 
> Incidental
> ==========
> The vast majority of use cases that we see today exist only as an
> artifact of the way that WHOIS works.
> 
> A long time ago a system was established that publishes certain
> information; without much thought about the long-term impact of the
> setup. Over the years people have found all kinds of creative, useful,
> and nefarious things to do with this information. However, storing or
> accessing this information has very little or nothing to do with
> actually making DNS work.
> 
> For example, the DNS protocol certainly does not care what my fax
> number is, but anyone who looks up my domain name will see it. (Don't
> worry, I won't be doxed! I don't have a fax because this isn't 1986.)
> Likewise DNS software doesn't care when a domain was created. And so on.
> 
> The use cases here include using RDS to track down criminals, research
> trademark disputes, create mass-mailing portfolios, looking for domain
> drop dates, and most of what people actually use WHOIS for today.
> 
> Note that I definitely include technical uses that are outside of the
> needs of the DNS protocol itself. So, for example, having a way to
> contact a DNS operator when something is wrong falls into this category.
> 
> Theoretical
> ===========
> We have seen a couple of proposed use cases that seem to be ideas that
> people have for useful or harmful ways that RDS can be used, but that
> do not exist today (at least not that anyone can fully document).
> 
> For example, there seems to be a desire to use the RDS as a way to
> issue warrants for information about registrants. While this may be
> useful, this is not possible today (even with RDAP, I note). Likewise
> concerns about using RDS to generate to generate lists of political
> enemies probably fits into this category.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Discussion
> ==========
> 
> I bring this up because eventually we should be able reject certain use
> cases. (As an NCUC member, I expect to push back hard against a lot of
> use cases defined for business or law-enforcement purposes.)
> 
> I think that what I called "primary" use cases have to be accommodated.
> I think there may be some disagreement about the details, but these
> should be relatively easy to come to consensus on.
> 
> On the other hand, I think that both what I called "incidental" and
> "theoretical" use cases need to be motivated more strongly.
> 
> There will probably be a natural tendency to prioritize existing uses
> of WHOIS - what I call "incidental" - because someone has some
> existing processes that depend on these. I think that this is wrong,
> and that any use of WHOIS outside of what is needed by DNS needs to be
> equally-well motivated.
> 
> That's about it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Shane
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg