[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Now open: 18 January Poll on Purpose

Shane Kerr shane at time-travellers.org
Mon Jan 23 06:37:42 UTC 2017 

Greg,

[ I realize that we're deep in the weeds of talking about definitions.
  Apologies if this is already been discussed in the past. ]

Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine a world without any RDS, WHOIS
or otherwise.

Would law enforcement simply give up trying to find contacts for domain
holders? No. They would look up the registry on IANA's web page:

https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db

Then they would contact the registry for this information. The registry
would then send them to the registrar. The registrar would then decide
what - if any - information to share with the LEA.

The WHOIS/RDS is really just a way to automate this process and make
things cheaper, easier, and more open & transparent.

Now... if we were to ask the LEA what system they would like if there
was no WHOIS as a model, would it look like the system we have today?
I'm not sure. I can imagine that it would involve things like a full
feed of registrations in real time so that LEA could scan for patterns,
ability to search history of registrations, alert mechanisms so that
when certain rules were triggered the police would be notified.

I don't want that. I don't want any of that!!

So while I agree it will be helpful to compare the various "uses" of
thin data, I do not want the RDS *designed* for all of these. If by
"purpose" we mean what the thin data is designed for, then I really
think it is just to get a referral to something with more information.

Cheers,

--
Shane

At 2017-01-22 13:33:12 -0500
Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> First, I would say that all legitimate purposes need to be catered
> for, so I don't think we can agree there. :-(
> 
> Second, I think the garbage can top analogy illustrates the difference
> between purpose and use.  It is not a legitimate purpose of a garbage
> can top to be used as a sled, even if it is a potential use.  (I
> don't think we can say that it is a legitimate use either, but
> hopefully we don't have to parse that issue, at least not yet.  In
> college, we used to sled down the hill in the middle of campus on
> cafeteria trays (from the cafeteria conveniently located near the top
> of the hill.  This was definitely not a legitimate purpose of those
> sleds.  We students may have thought this was a legitimate use of the
> trays, but I doubt this view was shared by cafeteria staff or
> university administration.  Or maybe we thought it was an
> illegitimate use, which made it more exciting (it's been a while...).)
> 
> I share your view that the need for the information is indisputable
> -- so we can agree there.  :-)
> 
> Nonetheless, I think there are good reasons that it is important to
> identify the legitimate purposes of the data is collected, and to
> accommodate those purposes.  Indeed, this is one of the essential
> purposes of this Working Group.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Shane Kerr
> <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:
> 
> > Greg,
> >
> > If we can say that not all legitimate purposes have to be catered
> > for, then I agree with you. :)
> >
> > If we say that tracking down the registrar of a domain as part of
> > trademark research is a legitimate purpose, that does not mean that
> > we have to design the system for this purpose, right?
> >
> > To try an analogy: We can recognize that using the plastic top of a
> > garbage can as a sled is legitimate, but we don't insist on
> > designing lids with sledding in mind.
> >
> > Full disclosure: My own take on the "legitimate purpose" discussion
> > with regards to "thin data" is that we need *some* purpose for both
> > gathering and publishing the information, because otherwise privacy
> > laws may prohibit companies from gathering or publishing it.
> > Luckily I think that there are so many such purposes that the need
> > for the information is indisputable.
> >
> > Jumping ahead... as I said in a prior call (sorry for missing ones
> > since then), I would prefer that the information is then allowed
> > for any purpose, without restriction, because otherwise you have to
> > have not only tiresome rules about what is allowed but also the
> > Internet Police to enforce those rules, which seems like a step
> > towards Armageddon.
> >
> > Given that we're still talking about "thin data", which is basically
> > just a pointer to a registrar who has *actual* data, my own
> > recommendation is not to stress too much. This stuff is only very,
> > very vaguely personally identifiable.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Shane
> >
> > At 2017-01-21 14:51:29 -0500
> > Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > I have to disagree.  These are legitimate purposes for
> > > collection, as  
> > well  
> > > as for disclosure.
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Stephanie Perrin <  
> > > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:  
> > >  
> > > > I filled it out, but I am afraid for most of the purposes I
> > > > could not agree.  We do not *collect *data for many of those
> > > > purposes.  We  
> > disclose  
> > > > it to people for those purposes, but the purpose of collecting
> > > > those  
> > data  
> > > > elements is not for tax collection, trademark enforcement
> > > > actions, etc. This is the conflation issue I have raised
> > > > repeatedly.
> > > >
> > > > Apologies if I did not make that point clear enough on the call.
> > > >
> > > > Stephanie Perrin
> > > >
> > > > On 2017-01-20 17:35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please note that our current poll ends in about 24 hours.  So
> > > > far only  
> > 16  
> > > > people have responded.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> > > > [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces at icann.org
> > > > <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of  
> > *Lisa  
> > > > Phifer
> > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2017 1:50 PM
> > > > *To:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <  
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>  
> > > > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Now open: 18 January
> > > > Poll on Purpose
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > As directed in the 18 January WG call, this week's new Poll on
> > > > Purpose  
> > is  
> > > > now open for WG member participation:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SZX9QJZ
> > > >
> > > > A PDF of this poll's questions and notes/recordings of the
> > > > meeting are posted on the 18 January meeting page:
> > > > https://community.icann.org/x/ EbTDAw
> > > >
> > > > This poll will close at *COB Saturday 21 January 2017*.
> > > >
> > > > All WG members are encouraged to participate in this poll to
> > > > help  
> > advance  
> > > > deliberation and prepare for next week's meeting.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Lisa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://  
> > 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
> > > >  
> >  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170123/1877fd1f/attachment.sig>

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list