[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jun 8 15:21:57 UTC 2017
I certainly apologize if I offended anyone from APWG here, but I
consulted Peter Cassidy prior to posting my message, and he is as
mystified as I am about what could have offended people here. And If I
am misrepresenting Peter, I am sure I will hear from him shortly since
he is an observer on this group and since we have been pals for a very
long time, (read over 20 years so who's counting), he will surely let me
know right away!
I happen to think the APWG is a great organization, that is why I
volunteer to help out with the Stop-think-connect program, something I
think deserves all the support it can get.
Cheers Stephanie
On 2017-06-08 11:16, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Jonathan makes some useful suggestions here. We certainly should not
> single out companies or organizations in a derogatory manner, but that
> should not prevent us from asking questions about specific companies
> or organizations if those questions are not critical of them and are
> designed to help our understanding.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *jonathan
> matkowsky
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 5:38 AM
> *To:* Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re:
> Why the thin data is necessary)]
>
> I am not sure if calling a position you are advocating for naive is
> the same as calling you naive, but it isn't helpful for sure. We need
> to all listen to each other when considering policy, and acknowledge
> the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points
> of view.
>
> *We also need to try and build consensus*. We all have an obligation
> to ensure that policy development and decision-making processes will
> reflect *the public interest*, irrespective of personal interests and
> the interests of the entity to which we as individuals might owe our
> appointment.
>
>
> We all owe each other to behave in a professional manner and
> demonstrate *appropriate behavior*.
>
> This includes acting in *good faith* with other participants. I
> want to say that
>
> while I am certain it was not intended, that
>
> people
>
> will
>
> react emotionally when you single out APWG without
>
> necessarily
>
> having any
>
> real need to
>
> do so
>
> for purposes of discussion
>
> .
>
> I know it upset me.
>
> I think h
>
> ow data is "shared" within APWG, an international coalition unifying
> the global response to cybercrime across industry, government and
> law-enforcement sectors and NGO communities
>
> is
>
> a
>
> different issue than sharing Whois data.
>
> I would encourage everyone to consider whether singling out a
> company like has been done with DomainTools or APWG, is
>
> appropriate or like I believe,
>
> *foreseeably derails the consensus building efforts in violation of
> ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior*.
>
> On a side note, a
>
> threat researcher or analyst is not the equivalent of an
> investigator. So focusing on certifying investigators is irrelevant
> to any issue within the working group.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jonathan Matkowsky
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
> Calling me naive, ill informed etc. does not actually answer the
> question folks. It is, I am afraid, a valid question. What
> criteria does an organization like APWG apply, when it admits
> members and shares data with them? How do you ensure you are not
> sharing data with organizations who are going to misuse it? that
> data of course is much more that what we are talking about with
> thin data, but I did actually work on this issue on successive
> versions of the anti-spam legislation. Oddly enough, government
> lawyers examining the issue (mostly from the competition bureau
> who deal with criminal matters) never labelled me "naive".
>
> Folks, can we please try to be polite to one another on this
> list? When I have questions like this, I often check with experts
> before I ask. They don't call me naive, they answer my questions.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-06-08 01:54, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
>
> My experience differs slightly. They aren’t ignored. The
> presence of these .TLDs is a strong indicator of abuse which
> bears further investigation.
>
> To the point at hand: I believe the notion of certifying
> private cybercrime investigators to be painfully naive (do I
> ignore reports from someone without a Internet Investigator
> License? Do we disallow them access to data?), impractical in
> the developed world, and deeply chauvinistic, patronizing and
> exclusionary to our colleagues in emerging nations where
> capacity building is exactly what’s needed to deal with
> next-gen abuse.
>
> On Jun 8, 2017, at 2:36 AM, allison nixon
> <elsakoo at gmail.com <mailto:elsakoo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> We're getting there. Entire top level domains are already
> ignored on many networks like .science, .xyz, .pw, .top,
> .club, et cetera
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20170608/3299a04b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list