[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Now open: 18 January Poll on Purpose
James Galvin
jgalvin at afilias.info
Tue Jan 24 21:19:59 UTC 2017
I’m still struggling to understand your answer to my question, “How
are the rights of legitimate users infringed by requiring them to
authenticate in order to get access to data?”
Scott has reframed my question by observing that one consideration for
this group is that there may be data that is available anonymously and
data that requires authentication of the requestor. Either that
consideration implicitly infers that rights are not infringed or we
still have a question to answer.
Taking a step back, it’s probably too soon to focus too much on this
issue. We’re really talking about data collection at this time so the
parameters of display or access are relevant but don’t need to be
solved just yet.
I agree there are a number of interesting if not important use cases.
The question I am pressing is why these use cases justify collection of
the data? If we can’t clearly answer this question then I will
continue to object to collecting the data for the purpose being
discussed.
I’m wondering if you’re asserting that legacy uses establish
legitimate usage and since that has been anonymous to date it is an
infringement of a “right” to take that away.
Jim
On 24 Jan 2017, at 14:05, Greg Aaron wrote:
> I made a typo below. It should read: “For example law enforcement
> investigators do not want to reveal what they are looking into, for
> obvious reasons. I also assume that they do not want to violate terms
> of service or lie about who they are or what they are doing.”
> --Greg
>
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 1:53 PM
> To: James Galvin <jgalvin at afilias.info>; RDS PDP WG
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Now open: 18 January Poll on Purpose
>
> Dear Jim:
>
> If legitimate users must identify themselves before looking up a
> domain name, and are required to state their purpose for making that
> query, that is a significant collection of data with huge privacy and
> security implications. It means that registrars and registry
> operators would collect information about what specific people are
> searching for, and why. Users who have perfectly legitimate uses are
> not currently required to give up their identities and use cases –
> can such a change be justified?
>
> As a practical matter, a change would makes people jump through hoops
> unnecessarily. If we’re talking about thin data, that data is not
> sensitive or personally identifiable. Thus there’s no reason for
> people who want to access it to declare their identities and use
> cases.
>
> Currently our RDS system (WHOIS) is a public query/response system.
> You’re pointing to turning RDS into a credential-driven system.
> That poses enormous consequences for privacy, security, and cost. A
> lot of people commented about those things in response to the EWG.
> See SAC061 or example.
>
> There are use cases that argue in favor of anonymous access. For
> example law enforcement investigators do not want to reveal what they
> are looking into, for obvious reasons. I also assume that they do
> they want to violate terms of service or lie about who they are or
> what they are doing.
>
> The setup we currently have -- a query/response system that does not
> require credentials or permissions -- avoids the above problems, among
> others.
>
> All best,
> --Greg
>
>
> From: James Galvin [mailto:jgalvin at afilias.info]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:55 PM
> To: RDS PDP WG
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> Cc: Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com<mailto:gca at icginc.com>>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Now open: 18 January Poll on Purpose
>
>
> I have a comment and a question about Greg’s suggestion/conclusion.
>
> First, while I appreciate the documented history and recollection of
> precedent, we are frequently reminded that we are starting with a
> clean slate. Thus the fact that “all use is allowed except when a
> use is specifically prohibited” currently exists in contracts is not
> binding for us.
>
> Second, could you say more about how the rights of legitimate users
> are infringed by having to identify themselves before getting access
> to data? In my experience it is ordinary process to identify yourself
> for access (and sometimes authenticate yourself) unless the
> circumstances are known to be anonymous or public. This group has to
> decide if the circumstances justify anonymous or public access, and
> what that means.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Jan 2017, at 12:45, Greg Aaron wrote:
>
> The question is not “Is ICANN a law enforcement body?’’
> (Clearly it is not.) The question is whether ICANN can require that
> data be collected and published in order to facilitate various
> legitimate goals. The answer to that question is clearly “yes.”
>
>
>
> ICANN’s Bylaws describe ICANN’s responsibilities and their scope
> – especially see Article 1, section 1, of ICANN’s Bylaws, entitled
> “Mission, Commitments and Core Values.”
> (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1
> ) Among other things, “ICANN's scope is to coordinate the
> development and implementation of policies: For which uniform or
> coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the
> openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of
> the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries…
> functional and performance specifications for the provision of
> registrar services; registrar policies reasonably necessary to
> implement Consensus Policies relating to a gTLD registry; resolution
> of disputes regarding the registration of domain names... Examples of
> the above include, without limitation: …maintenance of and access to
> accurate and up-to-date information concerning registered names and
> name servers”.
>
> Years back it was decided that the collection and publication of the
> data was important for accomplishing some legitimate goals, in keeping
> with the above principles. And since the old days there have been
> additional statements of note. For example in 2007 the GAC weighed in
> recognizing a number of specific legitimate uses, including
> “facilitating inquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark
> clearances and help counter intellectual property infringement” and
> “contributing to user confidence in the Internet”, in keeping with
> law. We’re reviewing all this now; just saying that there’s a lot
> of precedent, and proposals for chnage need to address precedent.
>
> Currently there is an approach that’s important to mention. The
> contracts say that registrars “shall permit use of data it provides
> in response to queries for any lawful purposes”. [Emphases added;
> and except for “mass unsolicited, commercial messages” i.e.
> spamming, and some high-volume queries.) Access is not prohibited or
> regulated. All use is allowed except when a use is specifically
> prohibited.
>
> The alternative is to enumerate all allowable uses and to regulate
> access based on each user’s intent to honor those allowed uses. And
> that takes the world to a place where a system must gatekeep all
> users, and parcel out data to them only after the assert or prove they
> have a legitimate use and that they will employ the data only for that
> purpose. IMHO that infringes upon the rights of legitimate users,
> and is also a completely unmanageable solution.
>
> All best,
>
> --Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Kimpian Peter
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 8:53 AM
> To: Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Now open: 18 January Poll on
> Purpose
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Adding to the purpose debate: usually it is common sense and wiedly
> reckognised that we don't collect personal data just for the sake of
> it or in bulk saying it will be good for one purpose or another.
> Usually data controllers have the obligation to say openly in advance
> this is why I am going to process (ie collect, agregate, transfer,
> etc.) personal data. Being said that it can not be excluded that those
> data will be used/accessed for "higher" common good and for the
> benefit for all by another athorised data controller. For example a
> telco company can if all conditions met disclose (!) data it
> previously collected to law enforcement agencies but this does not
> mean that the Telco compony can collect, process etc data for law
> enforcement purpose...
>
>
>
> My simple question to start with would be and always was: Is ICANN a
> law enforcement body? Does ICANN have any power/competence in fighting
> against crime? And it goes for other purposes as well: Is ICANN an
> international trademark organisation? Etc...Is the answer given to
> those questions is shared by all the community of ICANN? In my sense
> we have to be sure that we answer first those questions before
> deciding on possible purposes (which does not mean that discloser of
> data on a case-by case base according to international legal
> requirements will not be possible after this, but those will be
> exceptions !!!)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> 2017.01.22. 19:20 keltezéssel, Stephanie Perrin írta:
>
> I love your analogy Shane, it is perfect. In data protection terms
> that would be a use. For a legitimate purpose... sledding. There
> might have to be repercussions if you cracked the lid....that might be
> a data breach:-)
>
> I hate being a nit picker and calling out this distinction between
> purpose of collection as opposed to purpose for use and disclosure,
> but it is extremely important in terms of data protection. Some laws
> are more clear than others on the distinction, and you are correct
> that if we are not careful DP laws will forbid the collection and
> disclosure of the data. It is certainly clear that for collection of
> thin data, there is ample justification for collecting the info based
> on ICANN's limited mandate. However adding law enforcement and other
> similar website related investigative activities to the list of
> legitimate purposes is in my view opening a barn door. After a year
> of discussion we may understand the nuance, that we are talking about
> thin data, etc etc but when the fruits of our labours are published,
> it looks like we have all agreed that law enforcement (eg) is a
> legitimate purpose for collecting registration data. In my view, it
> is not.
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
>
>
> On 2017-01-22 04:03, Shane Kerr 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><mailto: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<mailto: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>
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
>
> bounces at icann.org<mailto:bounces at icann.org>
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org><mailto: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<mailto: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<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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170124/f8d77d73/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list