[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 17:17:59 UTC 2017
Fair enough Paul, that one is a tough slog too....
Stephanie
On 2017-06-08 13:12, Paul Keating wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Reading is always good.
>
> At present, I just don’t want to get bogged down in issues such as
> gateway criteria. That is something that should be dealt with down
> the road.
>
> From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie
> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Date: Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:04 PM
> To: Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com
> <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>, "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] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why the thin
> data is necessary)]
>
> Thanks Michele, I was actually trying to point to it as an example
> of good practice. I discussed the whole accreditation idea with
> Peter C, particularly in the context of work that is going on at
> the https://www.globalcyberalliance.org/index.html#contact. I
> realize some folks don't like the idea, indeed it would be perhaps
> more accurate to say that apparently the whole idea is anathema to
> them, but anybody who has read the UN Cybercrime report might
> possibly think we need to improve standards somehow. I assume
> there is no quarrel here as to whether that 2013 report is worth
> reading....
>
> cheers Steph
>
>
> On 2017-06-08 12:05, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> The APWG’s membership page provides some details on who can join
>> and some of the criteria that they apply to the membership process:
>>
>> http://apwg.org/membership/membership/
>>
>> There are several APWG members on this list who might be able to
>> speak to data access.
>>
>> I don’t think it’s particularly offensive to ask how an
>> organisation decides who should get access to data. If you don’t
>> ask I’ve no idea how you are meant to learn.
>>
>> 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> on behalf of
>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> *Date: *Thursday 8 June 2017 at 09:56
>> *To: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why
>> the thin data is necessary)]
>>
>> 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/20170608/7da91456/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list