[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions

Wed May 11 22:47:16 UTC 2016

Steve

I’d have to agree.

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com>
Date: Wednesday 11 May 2016 at 17:04
To: Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>, TXVB <ncuc at jollyrogers.email>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions

This focus is much too narrow, to the extent that it is limited to the business/institutional needs of ICANN and its contracted parties for data.

There is a big world out there of people and institutions, who are neither ICANN nor its contracted parties, who have relied for decades upon access to registration data for a myriad of lawful and productive purposes.  They also have an interest in how we answer the question “why we need an RDS.”

To answer that question we first need to decide who is “we”.

Steve Metalitz

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 11:54 AM
To: TXVB; ajs at anvilwalrusden.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions

Just a quick short "keep it simple" comment on both TXVB's and Andrew Sullivan's postings:

The "why we_need_an_RDS" is a legitimate question and it has two parts.

Part one is why does ICANN need what data, and beyond that, and largely outside ICANN's remit, part two is why do Registries and Registrars need data.

As far as ICANN is concerned the question is only around the data ICANN needs and the terms under which it is provided, stored, private and secure, terms of access by legal authorities etc.
ICANN can impose data requirements via its contracts with contracted parties and those may or may not be allowed to stand by the authorities in the countries where registries and registrars are located.

As the Irish have pointed out, some of what ICANN requires in its contracts is contrary to national law, even though enforcement has been lax. That is unlikely to continue, so whatever ICANN thinks it needs as it works through this gnso-rds-pdp-wg process, looking over the ICANN remit "fence" at legislation elsewhere is a judicious idea.

As for Andrew's point that operators have need for data to conduct their business, that "need" breaks down into three categories:
1. There is the data needed to meet ICANN's contracted requirements.
2. There is the data needed to conduct the business of dealing with clients as registrants (invoices, billing, payment, etc.).
3. There is desired data to conduct other marketing and innovative aspects of being a contracted operator (registry, registrar).

ICANN's focus should be primarily on category #1, with due respect to the costs and compatibilities with Registry and Registrar needs.
Category #2 is up to the contracted parties and they can compete or share best practices as they see fit, like any other industrial sector.
The only interest ICANN should have in Category #3 is to remain alert to data uses that may compromise the integrity of the DNS system and engage contracted parties when issues arise.

Rest assured that national and regional authorities will be also watching all of this with greater diligence.

Sam
On 5/11/2016 7:07 AM, TXVB wrote:
I have this concern also. That was the #1 item to consider, per the charter before plowing ahead.

-------- Original Message --------
On May 10, 2016, 1:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Hi,

I'm slightly concerned that we are forgetting in this discussion why
we _need_ an RDS in the first place.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:59:29AM -0400, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> ICANN has business interests in defining what data to collect, accessible by
> whom and under what conditions. It also has business interests, from within
> its remit, in the data relationship with its contracted parties.
> However, ICANN’s contracted parties reside within national jurisdictions,
> and the relevant data is hosted within national jurisdictions, so ICANN
> cannot unilaterally define what constitutes legitimate data policy within
> its business interests.

All of the above is something I agree with, but there's another
important point. For good, sound, plain old technical reasons, it's
important that operators be able to contact each other outside of the
Internet, so that when stuff breaks it's at least logically possible
that one could try to fix it.

The key point is that this is not some peculiar business interest of
ICANN, but instead a fundamental interest of anyone who uses the DNS
(i.e. approximately anyone who uses the Internet). It's basic to why
we have ICANN at all.

None of this is an argument that _all_ the information in any
particular RDS policy is what ought to be in the RDS. But at the same
time, it seems to me that some views about RDS treat every data field
as if it's a simple matter of political negotiation or something like
that. They're not all that way. As an operator of actual technical
infrastructure, I need to be able to contact someone who is causing
problems on my network, and that ability to contact had better not
depend on the Internet since the problem in question is likely to
result from some sort of interoperation failure in the first place.
Therefore,

> Some will brand this as the “fracturing of the Internet”. It is in fact
> other jurisdictions taking responsibility for Internet governance outside
> ICANN’s remit, but within their remit.

I don't think that all of this is just about "Internet governance",
any more than (say) port number allocations are a matter for Internet
governance. Some of it is just a fundamental part of having an
Internet at all. Remember, it's an inter-net because of the network
of networks part. Interoperation is a fundamental part, not something
you get to choose or not from a menu of available policy options.

Best regards,

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

_______________________________________________

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

--

------------------------------------------------

"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured

in an unjust state" -Confucius

 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也

------------------------------------------------

Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)

Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3

email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran at Yorku.ca>   Skype: slanfranco

blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com

Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160511/4dad7708/attachment.html>