[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Discussion Topics

Sun Jul 23 12:57:39 UTC 2017

I'm not sure if this is obvious to all the people in the RDS working group,
but especially registering a domain name for a pseudonymous/anonymous
collective that's working as some kind of a political NGO, can be
vulnerable to all kinds of malicious attacks, after the the info in the
WHOIS can be retrieved by anyone.

How would people like to be a registrant of some western LGBT domain and be
treated harshly in Abu Dhabi conference because of the exposure in the
WHOIS, for example?

-Raoul

-Raoul

On 21 July 2017 at 22:21, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:

> I forgot further down the line we are given loads of questions to fill in
> and give details which can be hidden by an extra payment then you need to
> get legal action to find the owner.
>
> My innocent question are we going to be canned the same way all in all our
> history or why not think of a better way to reduce the list but find
> another to catch abusers etc., not all Whois is correct be it on icann or
> even in RIRs there is a common issue that needs to be solved and we all
> need the accuracy of such details. I get frustrated both ways.
>
> Kris
>
> > On 20 Jul 2017, at 19:53, "benny at nordreg.se" <benny at nordreg.se> wrote:
> >
> > I like the idea, and combined with gated access it should easier to
> track down the abusive users.
> > Problem are still enforcement how, who and where, and there might even
> be jurisdictions which have no legal objections for this kind of behaviour
> >
> > Another problem to something like this, who will be the responsible part
> if a registrant have opted out and don't want to be contacted but still are
> contacted? We really don't want to give the impression to the registrant
> that these problems are solved with a tick in a box.
> >
> > --
> > Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen
> >
> > Benny Samuelsen
> > Registry Manager - Domainexpert
> >
> > Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
> > IANA-ID: 638
> > Phone: +46.42197000
> > Direct: +47.32260201
> > Mobile: +47.40410200
> >
> >> On 20 Jul 2017, at 17:38, Rod Rasmussen <rod at rodrasmussen.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Chuck,
> >>
> >> Please consider it “put forward” then. :-)
> >>
> >> I too have been experimenting a bit with registration-specific phone
> numbers and distressingly find the same issue - call upon call that only
> started to the number once the data was published in whois *AND* in the
> hands of the registrar of course (hard to tell who the real villain is
> given that, probably both).  Many of these are the Indian boiler rooms
> pretending to be “Microsoft support” for example.
> >>
> >> This fits in with the concepts we were discussing last week on
> “preferred contact methods” for a particular contact object (person/legal
> entity).  For example, we could still mandate collecting a phone number,
> but only publishing it for particular purposes and providing a “preferred
> public contact” method that is less intrusive depending upon the
> preferences of that contact.  Not saying I endorse that approach or not,
> just saying that we need to be thinking along those directions.  For
> example, I could provide my e-mail address as my preferred “public” contact
> method since I can spam filter it far more effectively than phone calls,
> but still be reachable via phone for important technical issues or abuse
> problems with some sort of vetting.
> >>
> >> At the end of the day we’re talking about a “directory service” here
> and we need to be approaching it from how we would engineer one at the end
> of the second decade of the 21st century rather than the beginning of the
> last decade of the 20th.  A long list of fixed field parameters tied to a
> single primary database key (domain name) that are one-size-fits-all for
> collection and public publication are definitely “old school”.
> Object-oriented data with relational pointers and flexible context that
> allow for differentiated publication are a bit more modern...
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Rod
> >>
> >>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Chuck Gomes Consulting <
> consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Johtan,
> >>>
> >>> I suggest that you either become a member of the WG and then submit
> this request or find a member who would put this suggestion forward.
> >>>
> >>> Chuck
> >>>
> >>> From: Jothan Frakes [mailto:jothan at jothan.com]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:58 PM
> >>> To: Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult at cgomes.com>
> >>> Cc: RDS WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Discussion Topics
> >>>
> >>> Hi-
> >>>
> >>> I am an observer on this group, but wanted to ask if it is possible to
> inject an explicit 'do not call for marketing' field into the whois which
> would be opt-out while we are under the hood.
> >>>
> >>> I realize such a thing is likely to be unenforceable, as there have
> been disclaimers and directions on use of the whois data within the output
> for years that gets completely disregarded by marketers, but it seems like
> it could be a hook upon which legislative efforts could be added.
> >>>
> >>> After receiving my 15th call today from aggressive telemarketers
> calling me on a telephone number that I created specifically for a new
> domain registration made less than 36 hours ago, it is clear to me that we
> MUST do something about this predatory behaviour if we can, and the
> information is clearly being sourced from whois.
> >>>
> >>> -Jothan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jothan Frakes
> >>> Tel: +1.206-355-0230
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Chuck Gomes Consulting <
> consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
> >>>> Here are the list discussion topics in preparation for next week’s WG
> meeting:
> >>>>    • Any topics related to the survey that will be distributed later
> today.
> >>>>        • Collecting the data element ‘Registrant’ for the RDS
> >>>>        • Collecting the data element ‘Registrant Organization’ for
> the RDS
> >>>>        • Collecting the data element ‘Registrant Country’ for the RDS
> >>>>        • Collecting the data element ‘Registrant Contact’ in the RDS.
> >>>>    • Any topics related to collecting the following data elements*
> for the RDS:
> >>>>        • Admin Contact & Contact ID
> >>>>        • Technical Contact & Contact ID
> >>>>        • Privacy/Proxy Provider Contact & Contact ID
> >>>>        • Reseller
> >>>>        • Registrar Abuse Contact Email Address
> >>>>        • Registrar Abuse Contact Phone
> >>>>        • URL of Internic Complaint Site (ICANN Whois Data Problem
> Reporting System)
> >>>>        • Original Registration Date
> >>>>
> >>>> * Note that most WG members who responded to last week’s poll
> supported collecting these data elements for the RDS.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have any questions, please ask them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Chuck
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>>> 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
> >>> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > 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
> 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/20170723/41a77cd4/attachment.html>