[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Fri Apr 28 09:59:31 UTC 2017
> As another use case, a recent merger of two companies created a
> company with a combined portfolio of approximately 7000 domain names.
> In the course of preparation and due diligence for the transaction,
> the law firms working on the merger probably both accessed the Whois
> records for all those domain names, as well as receiving reports from
> the registrars. The law firms may have accessed them directly, or
> through a service like DomainTools. Some of these were almost
> certainly ccTLDs but I would guess the vast majority were gTLDs.
>
Good example, but Whois not necessarily needed for that. Each company
could just have asked their registrars to certify their ownership of the
domain names. Most registrars provide this service if asked, either for
a fee or as included part of their management services. These
certifications could then be handed to the "opposing" counsel.
Volker
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Anderson, Marc
> <mcanderson at verisign.com <mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
> Greg, my apologies for misquoting you, please consider me corrected.
>
> I don’t think that a future RDS that facilitates access to the BPS
> of data rather than a one stop aggregator of data (which comes
> with synchronization and update challenges) would create a
> tsunami. After all this is how the DNS works today and it has much
> higher volumes than RDS. That said you make a fair point about
> possible unintended consequences and not letting perfect be the
> enemy of the good.
>
> I would be interested in hearing more about the registrar that
> needs access to 10k plus whois records a day. Has that use case
> been accounted for in the list of potential RDS requirements the
> working group has collected?
>
> Thanks,
> Marc
>
> *From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:16 PM
> *To:* Anderson, Marc
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; gtheo at xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
>
> Marc,
>
> I don't think the importance of convenience or "one-stop" to
> information related to the registration should be underestimated.
> I have heard that one registrar I know of accesses approximately
> 10,000 WHOIS records a day. Slicing and dicing the data currently
> in WHOIS could have massive ripple effects (maybe tsunami effects
> is more appropriate), if one look-up now becomes several look-ups
> later. The possible split between thin and thick is bad enough.
>
> Also, if some of the data is taken from the best possible
> (avoiding "authoritative") source (BPS), rather than the RDS
> database being the best possible source, then that should be
> explained and understood. Methods for insuring the highest
> fidelity to the BPS should be put in place, and the gaps should be
> generally explained and understood (e.g., if the RDS and the BPS
> only sync once a day or once an hour that should be understood, so
> that if you need absolutely current information from the BPS, you
> may need to go to the BPS as well).
>
> Whatever we do, there will still be some know-how and tricks of
> the trade, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
>
> Finally, to be clear, your statement, based on my statement, isn't
> quite accurate (e.g., my email would be the BPS...).
>
> You said, "As has been pointed out in another thread, this isn’t
> just the “Privacy Working Group”; it’s the “Next Gen RDS Working
> Group”."
>
> It would be a more accurate paraphrase to say, "As has been
> pointed out in another thread, this isn’t the “Privacy Working
> Group”; it’s just the “Next Gen RDS Working Group”."
>
> Greg
>
>
> *Greg Shatan
> *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Anderson, Marc via
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> 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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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>
> <mailto: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
>
> <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
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986784/RDSPDP-Task12-Revised-21April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1492802630734&api=v2>
> 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
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078605/NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1492802791000&api=v2>
> 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
> <https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
> <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
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170428/55852d58/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list