[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 May Meeting
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed May 10 15:19:27 UTC 2017
Yes you did make it clear Chuck, I am just including it as part of my
footnote or derogation recommendation. Feel free to gloss over it, this
may get repetitive:-)
Stephanie
On 2017-05-10 10:07, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> 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/20170510/7563943e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list