[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Jun 9 01:55:10 UTC 2017
I can understand why you might not feel that "Freebee-Whois" does not
have a really professional tone to it, but for what possible reason
are you rejecting Whifflefarbs?
Alan
At 08/06/2017 08:32 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>I encourage members to express support for any options you like
>including Alan's first suggestion and Rob's suggestions.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias at icann.org]
>Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 8:30 PM
>To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>; alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca;
>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com; 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)]
>
>How about:
>
>- "public",
>- "exposed",
>- "unlimited",
>- "unbounded",
>- "unrestricted",
>- "open-access",
>- "free-access",
>- "anonymous-access", or
>- "unconditional-access"
>
>elements/fields?
>
>--
>Francisco
>
>On 6/8/17, 5:12 PM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>on behalf of gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Alan. Does anyone have a suggestion different than
> 'ungated elements'?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:09 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>; ajs at anvilwalrusden.com;
> 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)]
>
> Chuck, I really think it is bad choice to call the set of
> elements that can be accesses without restriction "thin". Thin is
> an accepted and understood term in relation to Whois and is the set
> of data elements maintained (and displayed) by the .com, net and
> jobs registries. It is well documented. See
> https://whois.icann.org/en/what-are-thick-and-thin-entries,
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-27-en
> and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS#Thin_and_thick_lookups.
>
> To use this same term to define a potentially different set of
> elements will only lead to confusion. It certainly did for me on
> this week's call!
>
> No matter what disclaimers we put in any document saying we are
> using the term "thin Whois elements" to refer to a different group
> than is currently used in the existing thin Whois displays many
> people will take it differently.
>
> Can we please use some other expression: ungated elements;
> freebee-Whois; or Whifflefarbs. But not one that already has a
> different meaning!
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> At 08/06/2017 04:59 PM, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
> >Like much of the discussion over the last 24 hours +, I think we are
> >getting ahead of ourselves. If and when we propose gated access for any
> >(thick) data elements, we will consider the EWG recommendation of some
> >form of accreditation for those who would be granted access to those
> >elements. In the meantime, I suggest that we focus on the main topic
> >of the week (and the poll), which is what elements should be defined as
> >thin. Contributions to help us reach conclusion on that are most
> >welcome and I sincerely thank those of you already but some very good
> >comments in that regard.
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> >[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:53 PM
> >To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why
> >the thin data is necessary)]
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:55:19AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> > > These are excellent questions. I would add an additional one: why
> > > are private cybercrime investigators not accredited? How can the
> > > global public trust them, or perhaps why?
> >
> >The above question implies a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the
> >Internet.
> >
> >As Phill Hallam-Baker[1] said once, "On the Internet, you are so not in
> >charge for every value of 'you'." The reason that Internet private
> >cybercrime investigators are not accredited is the same reason that
> >Internet policy people are not accredited, Internet technical
> >contributors are not accredited, Internet e-commerce site operators are
> >not accredited, and Internet private fans of dressing up as furry
> >creatures are not accredited. In a network of networks, there is no
> >centre of control because there is _no centre_. Since there is no
> >centre of control on the Internet, accreditation in the generic sense
> >above is completely meaningless.
> >
> >The way things on the Internet work is _voluntary_ interconnection,
> >which means that you're a "private cybercrime investigator" if people
> >who have real legal authority in real legal jurisdictions decide to
> >rely on and work with your investigations. You're an ISP if people
> >decide to use your service provisioning to connect to the Internet.
> >And so on.
> >
> >The idea that there is anyone in a position to accredit someone else
> >for a generic Internet job completely misses the way the Internet
> >actually functions. ICANN today can accredit registrars and registries
> >(and therefore make policies about RDS) because people agree to let
> >ICANN do this, because it's doing it now and it's hard to change that.
> >But if ICANN proves to be too useless for the rest of the Internet
> >(because, to take an imaginary case, the community around ICANN thinks
> >it is Boss of da Internetz and so can make rules that break operational
> >reality without any apparent operational benefit), then its role in
> >IANA registries will simply be usurped by others, and people will
> >ignore the ICANN registrars and registries and everything like that. I
> >certainly hope we never get there, because it would be really painful
> >and bad for the Internet. But it is certainly possible. ICANN has no
> >power independent of the agreement of everyone to use the ICANN
> >policies for the IANA
> > DNS root. Ask MySpace or the authors of Gopher whether there are
> >any permanent favourites on the Internet.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >A
> >
> >[1] of all people
> >
> >--
> >Andrew Sullivan
> >ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list