[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC

Wed Apr 26 21:11:49 UTC 2017

Thanks Marc.

In the WG meeting, when I asked whether anyone objected to the statement that all thin data elements should be available to the public I did not assume anonymity.  All I meant was that the elements should be available to anyone without precluding operational requirements such as rate limiting or minimal requirements that might be added to allow identification of the requestor.  I considered the issue of anonymous access to be a separate issue that we will deal with later.  In other words, public access would not be restricted in any way that would have to be validated.

Chuck

From: Anderson, Marc 
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 2:15 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>; gtheo at xs4all.nl
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC

Chuck, I didn't do a very good job explaining my hesitation on yesterday's call so let me try again here.

I appreciate that we've gotten bogged down recently and that the leadership team is trying to move the PDP forward.  From my perspective though, we went from trying to define a purpose(s) of RDS and discussing what data elements should be collected (making sure they map back to a purpose) and then defining who should have access to those data elements and under what circumstances to just throwing up our hands and saying hey, the elements of today's "thin" whois don't seem to have any personally identifiable information in them, does anyone object to just making it all available for unlimited anonymous access in a future RDS solution.

When you asked if anyone objects I felt left with a choice: either say nothing which would in effect be agreeing that this working group has reached rough consensus that all of today's "thin" whois elements should continue to be available via unlimited anonymous access or object.  While I'm not sure exactly what I would have been agreeing to by remaining silent I don't feel comfortable saying that existing thin whois should continue as is.

On a previous call we discussed the Registrar field and if that should be required or not.  We ran out of time before fully getting into the discussion.  Aside from the "Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID" field, I don't think it makes sense to require other registrar meta data in a domain query response.  For example the Whois Server, Referral URL and (newly required) Registrar abuse phone and Registrar abuse email fields.  These are all registrar specific data elements not domain data elements.  If querying a registrar RDS service, you already know the whois server and referral URL so it really doesn't make sense to have those in the response.

As ICANN accredits registrars and already maintains public lists of them, to me it makes more sense to have that data centrally managed/maintained and made available by ICANN.  At risk of pre-supposing a solution, RDAP would provide the ability to bring that data together in a single client pulling from separate (more appropriate) data sources.

I have questions about other fields as well.  Name Server information for example is already available via DNS.  There is undoubtedly a convenience factor to being able to get that from whois as well.  I know that authoritative is a loaded term but in the event that whois and DNS were different I don't think anyone would consider whois authoritative using any definition of the term.  Shouldn't we consider if it makes sense to continue to provide the same domain data elements in two different places?

Domain statuses have been discussed a little bit by this working group but to my knowledge not in detail.  From what I've heard so far I'm not sure that data should be available to anyone other than the registrar and registrant.  I'm not saying there isn't a valid use case, but unless I missed it, I don't think we've really had a chance to discuss, much less come to consensus.

Again I realize we are trying to move things forward and if the intent is to table some of these discussions so we can get to the gated access discussion, I get it.  It felt to me on the call though that we had boiled things down to since there is no personally identifiable information in traditional thin whois, let's just have all of that be available for unlimited anonymous access.  As has been pointed out in another thread, this isn't just the "Privacy Working Group"; it's the "Next Gen RDS Working Group".

Hopefully that helps explain my hesitation and why I put a red "X" in Adobe.

Thanks,

Marc

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 6:02 PM
To: gtheo at xs4all.nl; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC

Thanks Theo.  Do I understand you are saying that you could support thin Whois data elements as public data in the RDS?

Regardless, I would still like to see if we can find a resolution to Marc's concern as long as we don't spend an inordinate amount of time on it.  I will try to reach out to Marc to see if I can understand his position better.  And the Leadership team will try to schedule a call later this week to work on this further.

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of theo geurts
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:31 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC

Repeating my agreement with the below as mentioned earlier on the call.

Regarding my earlier comments about NO WHOIS, still technically feasible, and in my opinion good to think outside of the box and check what the purpose is, and I think we should keep checking the purpose all the time. For the progress of the WG, it is best to move to gated access and use thin WHOIS for now as available public data. 

For the discussion about gated access perhaps it is an idea look at the IPC/RrSG developed framework for the PPSAI to see if that is sufficient to address copyright and trademark concerns. Could save us work if that is workable. 

Best,

Theo Geurts

On 25-4-2017 16:40, Victoria Sheckler wrote:

Apologies for missing last week's and today's meeting.  With respect to item 4 below, based on the discussion we've had to date, I believe all thin whois data should be publicly available as it is either not personally identifiable information, or, in extreme edge cases (such as a long domain name that includes personal information), then it is clear that that individual has chosen to make such information public. 

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 12:51 PM
To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC

Dear all,

The next GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group teleconference will take place on Tuesday, 25 April at  16.00 UTC 

Below please find the proposed agenda for this meeting, along with links to meeting materials, which can all be found on the meeting page:  https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw

Regards,
Lisa

Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting 25 April 16.00 UTC
1) Roll Call/SOI Updates
2) Plan to complete in-progress tasks
    a) ccTLD questions
    b) Definition of authoritative
3) Revised Task 12 sequence and timeline
    See RDSPDP-Task12-Revised-21April2017.pdf
4) Start deliberation on the charter question/subquestion 5.1:
    Should gTLD registration "thin data" be entirely public or should access be controlled?
    See NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf
5) Confirm action items and proposed decision points
6) Confirm next meeting date: 2 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC 

Meeting Materials: https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg