[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 May Meeting

Wed May 10 14:07:44 UTC 2017

Thanks for the useful feedback Stephanie.  I trust that you will find my response to Greg helpful.  I hope I made clear in yesterday's call what you say below, i.e., "It is recognized that some data elements currently forming part of the thin data set may be removed upon further deliberations on data elements."

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 11:45 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 May Meeting

I think I agree with Greg here on a couple of points.

I checked out the pdf version (thanks for making this version available, it is helpful) and I agree with the should/shall/must clarifications.  Further, I would propose the following option:

Requestors must have access to thin data elements without either identifying or authenticating themselves.  It is recognized that some data elements currently forming part of the thin data set may be removed upon further deliberations on data elements.

[I recognize that anonymity is hard to find, but this makes explicit that if a requester makes an effort to obscure his/her/their identity, nothing can or should be done about it.  It also makes explicit that there is no need for authentication.  The second caveat is my usual one.....]

With respect to the next question, I really feel like we are parachuting into operational concerns, without necessarily dealing with the issues involved, at least for those of us to whom "rate limiting" is not an everyday activity or term we use.  It is not the case that there are no policy issues wrapped up in this, in my view.....once we establish that "anonymous" unauthenticated access is fine, is there a risk that there will be/is already wholesale vacuuming of data?  What is the downside of this? Would that be a violation of current RAA requirements, or rather would the lack of it indicate a violation?  are there anti-competitive actions at play in rate limiting? why was it (or more precisely, bulk access control) introduced into the RAA in the first place, and do those issues pertain today? these are questions that those of us not in the business might ask (at least I am asking, and I was one of very few non-commercial parties on the call today...I counted 2 but I may have missed somebody)

On a second unrelated note, I did the doodle polls for newcomer needs, hoping you might be offering a basic skills on managing WHOIS.  No luck there, but I commend that to you as a potential webinar....some of us (as may be clear by the questions above) would like to understand better exactly who looks for what data when and why, how that impacts the registrar/registry burden and the systems they run, volume and metrics and $$$.....
Stephanie Perrin

On 2017-05-09 22:28, Greg Aaron wrote:

   Dear Lisa and Chuck and everyone:

   I am wondering if this poll may be of limited utility because we may be using the wrong words here, and the group may not share a crucial common vocabulary.

   All four options ask about "authentication" but we have not defined what that means.  Authentication is different from "anonymous" access, and anonymous access is what we may actually be trying to discuss. Note that the EWG recommended "anonymous" access for thin data.   The distinctions are crucial.  Authenticated access is not really anonymous, and the two terms tend to be mutually exclusive.

   So, can we please define those terms?

   Also, please note that the poll options use the term "should" -- but I think the  word "must" was meant instead.   "Must" indicates something mandatory, a requirement.   "Should" does not mean a thing is required or mandatory - it is a recommendation or opinion that can be ignored.

   There is a standard reference we can use.  The terms MAY, MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL,  SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are defined in RFC 2119.  ( https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt )   RFC 2119 defined those terms for use in all subsequent RFCs.  The EWG was careful to use the above terms according to RFC 2119 (see Final Report, page 18). ICANN registry contracts, the TMCH RPM Requirements, and other ICANN efforts have also used RFC 2119 as a definitional document.

   Clear definitions and choices of words really matter in policy-making, and can help us all understand each other.  I'm also noting this stuff in email because the poll doesn't have a notes or comments field.

   All best,

   --Greg

   **********************************

   Greg Aaron

   Vice-President, Product Management

   iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com

   mobile: +1.215.858.2257

   **********************************

   The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

   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 Lisa Phifer
   Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 8:08 PM
   To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
   Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 May Meeting
   Importance: High

   Dear all,

   In follow-up to today's meeting, all RDS PDP WG Members are encouraged to participate in the following poll:

   https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BNKJ55R

   Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:

   https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078610/Poll-from-9MayCall.pdf

   This poll will close at COB Saturday 13 May.

   Please note that you must be a WG Member to participate in polls. If you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first contact gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> to upgrade to WG Member.

   Regards,

   Lisa

   _______________________________________________
   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/20170510/2c0d424a/attachment-0001.html>