[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration data

[John Bambenek]

Re:

"Data can only processed to satisfy necessary, proportionate, legitimate aims..."

Many of us would argue having ungated ownership information fits squarely in both ICANN's security and stability mandate AND more importantly it is very much in the public interest. For instance, this:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/world/europe/macron-russian-hacking.html

Individuals, allegedly associated with Russian intelligence, registered domains and used them specifically to target En Marche's use of office 365. This was caught because today its possible to detect registrations based on keywords (for instance, with DomainTools). Using registrant information it was possible to find all the domains associated with this individual and preemptively take protective measures. I should note the registrant used demonstrably false registrant information (an address that doesn't exist, for one) showing that even with accuracy rules, registries do not appear to be taking even basic steps beyond "the email didn't bounce" steps to ensure accuracy even when automated and trivial tools would detect such things. This is why I don't want to give up on "authoritative" yet. 

If you are concerned about a Le Pen presidency brought on by Russian manipulation, on behalf of the security community, let me say "you're welcome". 

The conversations with data protection authorities have thus far, from my observations, been unbalanced due to lack of our participation. We can have both privacy and security. 

When they (and for that matter, their parliaments) are made aware of the consequences of this particular path, I am sure adjustments will be made. Throwing everything behind a gate means we not only are much more inhibited to protect our client networks, we are much less able to deal with potential propaganda and election manipulation. Even if we had enough access behind the gate, there is no way we'd have enough functionality and even if we did, we would be exposing those researchers who do this work by creating audit logs that certainly will be accessible to a hostile intelligence agency. 

In the balance of harms between "some spam" and election manipulation, I think I know where public policy will end up. 

That said, I still think I could defend keeping this information the way it is today and justify it under appropriate and permissible purpose. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 07:47, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Data can only processed to satisfy necessary, proportionate, legitimate aim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170427/b664d04c/attachment.html>