[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Additional possible requirements from the Cross-Community session on RDS

Lisa Phifer lisa at corecom.com
Mon Jun 27 21:33:51 UTC 2016

Dear all,


Many thanks to all who participated in Monday's Cross-Community session on
RDS. The full transcript of the session will be posted on the meeting page
(http://sched.co/7NCc) when available. In the meantime, below are rough
notes capturing additional possible requirements suggested by attendees. 


These and other additions suggested through Outreach #2 will be recorded in
the SO/AC/SG/C section of this WG's wiki (
<https://community.icann.org/x/pYxlAw> https://community.icann.org/x/pYxlAw)
and addressed during our Tuesday F2F WG meeting. Thanks again to WG members
serving as liaisons for working to relay further inputs from other groups.





Possible Requirements suggested by attendees:


.                  Uniform presentation of data across all registrars or

.                  Access to LEAs

.                  Ability to consult the history of a registration

.                  Consider whether a domain registration must require
verification that there is a real person behind the domain name registration

.                  In the spirit of many data protection laws around the
world, users should know for what purposes their data is given and to whom

.                  When using a domain name from a person perspective, I
wish my data would not be available to marketing purposes

.                  When I buy something on the web, I would like to be able
to access the registration data for the web page I am using to know it is
the real company

.                  There are a lot of third parties (not just LEAs) who have
legitimate reasons for access to avoid their rights being infringed upon

.                  A key issue is translation or transliteration of
registration data - including provision of contact data and address in local

.                  Related to TM Clearinghouse notices, when notices are
received, analysis that is performed includes going to see who is the
registrant - this often eliminates the need for further action (~60-70%)

.                  For any registered domain, there should be a valid admin
and technical contact and this information should be public, with "as of"
date (as minimum)

.                  Instead of adding to list, we should subtract things in
the spirit of minimization - for example, removing the address from RDS to
reduce risk to individual registrants such as journalists, bloggers, and
many civil society organizations

.                  Having fewer requirements might be helpful. One way to do
that is to not include possible requirements where there may be a better
alternative to achieve the result in a better way

.                  Regarding new plan for transatlantic data protection
(i.e., Privacy Shield) to replace the annulled Safe Harbor mechanism - WG
should recognize this work is going on and keep track of its progress as it
applied to possible requirements for data protection

.                  In existing WHOIS there wasn't a clear interface to
access registration data - it is a requirement to have a clear interface
that makes access easier (i.e., restful API)

.                  There should be a fast real-time way to see whether a
domain name has been registered through a proxy service provider or has
privacy protection. This could ease up concerns about domains having
information omitted


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160628/695c5be4/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list