[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC
Michele Neylon - Blacknight
michele at blacknight.com
Fri Apr 28 11:35:01 UTC 2017
Paul
It might not be the “meat” of your message, but there have been several posts from a number of people who are trying to make out that because registrars may have issues with X that it’s a revenue issue.
It isn’t.
It can be and when it is then I’ve no issue with stating as much, but the assumption and indication that pretty much any objection raised ties back to revenue is incorrect.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: Paul Keating <Paul at law.es>
Date: Friday 28 April 2017 at 12:32
To: Michele Neylon <michele at blacknight.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC
Ok I accept your statement of your intension. However, this was not really the meat of the message.
From: Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 1:27 PM
To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC
Paul
I can’t speak for Volker, but we have no interest in creating a revenue model around this. Sure, if you want us to spend time and energy on pulling out complex details we’d have to get something out of it, but we can’t bill our clients for asking for a statement of account ..
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul at law.es<mailto:Paul at law.es>>
Date: Friday 28 April 2017 at 12:04
To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC
Volker,
No insult intended but I believe you are making an error because you are (IMHO) approaching the “problem” using the narrow set of use-case-facts you may know..
Volker Greimann vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote: 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.
As an attorney having engaged in m any similar transactions, I can assure you that obtaining a certificate of ownership and being able to investigate WHOIS, including historical information via aggregators, it is NOT at all the same.
Case 1. As a seller I must represent and warrant that I have good and marketable title and own the asset free of claims and encumbrances. Depending upon the value of the domain name, the client may require that the historical ownership be verified and compared with acquisition records so as to determine a clean history of title (the same a title company does when you purchase real estate).
Case 2. I represent auditing companies and must establish the accuracy of transactional records evidencing purchase. To do so I must access a third party source (independent of the client). Thus, I turn to WHOIS aggregators who maintain historical information that can be used to verify ownership against the purchase documentation.
Case 3. I am representing a client faced with a tax audit. I must establish by independent means the acquisition of the domain name(s).
Case 4. I am assisting a client recover a domain name that has been highjacked. The WHOIS, both current and historical provides extremely valuable data without which I could not accomplish my task.
In all of the above, the domain may have been registered at various registrars during its life. My client may not even know all of the registrars in the title history (e.g. Some may have been automated or prior to ownership). Those client who acquire via the drop often have 10’s – 20’s registrar accounts and although they attempt to consolidate that is not an easy task. So, merely asking my client’s current registrar for data is a no-go.
Further, using your “system” I must pay each point of data requests – surely the registrars will attempt to create a revenue model – something I suspect they want all along and is a major driver for them in this issue. So, instead of dealing with an automated task with a single purchase transaction point I must now deal with a manual process with multiple transaction points.
From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM
To: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting Tuesday 25 April 16.00 UTC
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] 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] 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
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung.
Mit freundlichen Gr??en,
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<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r 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<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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.
_______________________________________________ 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170428/cad5afb2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list