[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPROTANT - Action Items and Notes from Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 17 May 2017
Chris Pelling
chris at netearth.net
Wed May 17 18:04:54 UTC 2017
Paul,
As I said, we won't agree on it. Thus no point wasting our time.
I stated in my last reply the problem with archived data.
So let's agree to disagree please.
Sent from Chris on the move!
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:45 PM +0100, "Paul Keating" <Paul at law.es> wrote:
So you are opposed to historical data?
The GDPR deals only with personal data. It does not cover anyone else. It also only restricts use and deals with consents as to such use.
Can you please explain your concerns about historical data?
PRK
From: Chris Pelling <chris at netearth.net>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 7:33 PM
To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPROTANT - Action Items and Notes from Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 17 May 2017
Paul,
It is simply not "current" data - that's the main issue apart from it being storage of information.
Anyhow, as mentioned we would not see eye to eye on this, and hence my point of no further debate between us.
I won't be wasting more time on it - thin data meaning, DNS servers, registrar, status's , dates fine, nothing else.
Sent from Chris on the move!
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:21 PM +0100, "Paul Keating" <Paul at law.es> wrote:
Chris,
I simply don’t understand your response.
The date on Dtools is a duplication of the actual published WHOIS (along with other data). So there is no way that what is listed in Dtools is not correct. It is what was entered by the registrant and nothing more.
I realize that there are people out there that don’t like the fact that their registration data is public. However, that is the case at any WHOIS source and not simply companies like Dtools.
There is great benefit to the debate and a throw-away comment like “agree to disagree” is of little value to reaching a consensus – at least IMHO.
From: Chris Pelling <chris at netearth.net>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 7:02 PM
To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPROTANT - Action Items and Notes from Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 17 May 2017
Paul,
I totally disagree with you with regards "whats the problem with harvesting" - just the other day as an example we ended up spending an hour telling a registrant that information held by domaintools is not correct - just because they say it is. Even providing a whois from the registry to the registrant was not proof enough.
There is no point debating that though as we will simply disagree.
Kind regards,
Chris
From: "Paul Keating" <Paul at law.es>
To: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 May, 2017 17:13:55
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPROTANT - Action Items and Notes from Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 17 May 2017
What is the problem with harvesting?
This is public data. There is no Intellectual Property right in the data itself.
Asking for ME.
Paul
From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:02 PM
To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPROTANT - Action Items and Notes from Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 17 May 2017
Why do we want to prevent harvesting? Asking for a friend.
Greg
Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
I can see dozens of legitimate reasons for restricting access
that are not related to the efficiencies of the data retrieval
system, first of which is harvesting prevention.
Volker
Am 17.05.2017 um 17:55 schrieb Paul
Keating:
“There must be no RDS policies that
prevent RDS operators from applying operational controls
such as rate limiting and CAPTCHA, provided that they do not
unreasonably restrict legitimate access.“,
Caveat. The rate controls must
be related to controlling the efficiiciencies of the
underlying data retrieval system and not for o there purposes.
PRK
From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, May
17, 2017 at 9:48 AM
To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org"
<gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:
[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPROTANT - Action Items and Notes from
Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 17 May 2017
Dear
Working Group Members,
Please
find below the action items and notes from today’s
Working Group call.
Thanks.
Amr
These
high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG
members navigate through the content of the call
and are not meant as a substitute for the
transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript,
and chat are provided separately and are posted on
the wiki here:
https://community.icann.org/x/HMPRAw
Action
Items:
1.
Newcomers to RSVP to Newcomer Tutorial invitation if
you plan to attend
2.
Staff to launch poll the test revised item 2) in
statement
of purpose and revised 2 May agreement:
a. The test revised item 2)
in
statement
of purpose: "2) A purpose of RDS is to
facilitate dissemination of gTLD registration data
of record, such as domain names and their domain
contacts and name servers, in accordance with
applicable policy.”
b. Revised 2 May agreement:
"gTLD registration "thin data" must be accessible
without requestor identification, authentication, or
stated purpose"
WG members to participate
in poll by COB Saturday 20 May.
3.
Rod Rasmussen and Vaibhav Aggarwal to work together
to define what "unreasonably restrict legitimate
access" means in the context of this statement
“There must be no RDS policies that prevent
RDS operators from applying operational controls
such as rate limiting and CAPTCHA, provided that
they do not unreasonably restrict legitimate
access.“, and propose that definition to
WG mailing list, preferably before next week's WG
call
Notes:
1)
Roll Call/SOI Updates
Attendance will be taken
from AC
Please remember to state
your name before speaking and remember to mute
your microphones when not speaking
SOI updates: none
2)
Brief updates
a) Newcomer tutorial plans:
Tuesday 23 May,
immediately following WG Call
Recording to be available
for on-demand replay
Action
Item: Newcomers
to RSVP to Newcomer Tutorial invitation if you plan
to attend
b)
ICANN59 meeting plans:
Monday 26 June
Cross-Community Session on RDS
Tuesday 27 June
Face-to-Face RDS PDP WG Session
3)
Review proposed-final definition(s) to replace
"authoritative" in Statement of Purpose, Item 2):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078620/DataOfRecord-Proposal.pdf
Recommendation on how to
proceed with replacement term for "authoritative"
Starting with poll
results from 28 March for Statement of Purpose
item 2) - substitute term "Data of Record" so that
item will read:
"2) A purpose of RDS is
to facilitate dissemination of gTLD registration
data of record, such as domain names and their
domain contacts and name servers, in accordance
with applicable policy.”
Definition: "the data set
at a given time relevant to a given registration
object that expresses the data provided in the
then-current registration for that object.”
Can still later consider
"source of record" but does not appear needed to
convey intent of this item in the statement of
purpose
Proposed
WG Agreement (to test with poll): "2) A purpose of RDS is to
facilitate dissemination of gTLD registration data
of record, such as domain names and their domain
contacts and name servers, in accordance with
applicable policy.” (including footnoted definition
above)
4)
Continue deliberation on the charter question 5:
What steps should be taken to control "thin data"
access?
See handout https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078620/Charter%20Question%205%20-%20Handout%20-%20For17MayCall%20v2.pdf
Full results available
at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078620/SummaryResults-Poll-from-9MayCall.pdf
a)
Is "thin data" access authentication required or
allowed?
Proposed answer: Based on
Poll Question 2) Option e)
"Thin data elements must
be accessible without requestor authentication."
With 33 responses, option
e) had greatest support and least opposition - but
not rough consensus
Does "inquirers
identifying themselves" or "authentication" imply
a person rather than a machine making the request?
First proposed change
"gTLD registration "thin data" should be
accessible without inquirer identification or
stating purpose".
Consider combining option
e) with this agreement, and using "requestor"
instead of "inquirer" for consistency
Revised/combined proposed
change "gTLD registration "thin data" must be
accessible without requestor identification,
authentication, or stated purpose".
Proposed
WG Agreement (to test with poll): "gTLD registration "thin
data" must be accessible without requestor
identification, authentication, or stated purpose".
b)
Is "thin data" access anonymity required or allowed?
Proposed answer: Based on
Poll Question 2) Comment 9:
"Access to thin
registration data must be provided to anonymous
requestors."
Does anyone think we must
refer to anonymity or is proposed agreement in a)
sufficient?
Introduces a new term
that may be problematic.
Why do we need to define
anonymous now? Thick data for LEA we may need to
define anonymous and untraceable and a whole slew
of things but we are only on thin data now, right?
The current proposal
(under a above) says what the requestor does _not_
have to give, rather than trying to create an
attribute of the requestor
c)
Do we need to define "authentication"?
We might need to define
it later (since we say that there is no
authentification required for thin data) - may
need to define it for thick data
Is "according to policy"
implicit in WG agreements? We haven't yet agreed
on specific "thin data" elements yet
Action
Item: Staff
to launch poll the test revised item 2) in statement
of purpose and revised 2 May agreement (the two
Proposed WG Agreements above). WG members to
participate in poll by COB Saturday 20 May.
d)
Should policies allow or prevent application of
operational controls?
Rough consensus WG
Agreement (75%) on Poll Question 3):
"There must be no RDS
policies that prevent RDS operators from
applying operational controls such as rate
limiting and CAPTCHA, provided that they do not
unreasonably restrict legitimate access."
Need to define specific
policy for "reasonable" and "legitimate" during
Phase 2 of this PDP?
Is there a need for an
explicit statement like this? If the information
is public, is it necessary to limit to prevent
scraping? Or is rate limiting being used to limit
legitimate access - can't ignore this
gaming/artificial limit possibility.
Note 2013 RAA 3.3.5
states "Registrar shall permit use of data it
provides in response to queries for any lawful
purposes except to...(b) enable high volume,
automated, electronic processes that send queries
or data to the systems of any Registry Operator or
ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably
necessary to register domain names or modify
existing registrations."
Perhaps rather than
saying something about rate-limiting per se, we
need an SLA about the level of access that must be
supported.
Remaining silent on this
point may lead to policies that interfere with use
of operational controls - but using "unreasonably
restrict legitimate access" may leap this too open
ended
Agreed to put this rough
consensus point on hold, pending definition of
what "unreasonably restrict legitimate access"
means
Action
Item: Rod
Rasmussen and Vaibhav Aggarwal to work together to
define what "unreasonably restrict legitimate
access" means in the context of this statement and
propose that definition to WG mailing list,
preferrably before next week's WG call.
e)
Review all of charter question 5 sub-questions with
goal to complete first pass deliberation on "thin
data" access in May
DEFERRED TO 23
MAY WG MEETING
5)
Confirm action items and proposed decision points
Proposed WG Agreement
(to test with poll): "2) A purpose of RDS is
to facilitate dissemination of gTLD registration
data of record, such as domain names and their
domain contacts and name servers, in accordance
with applicable policy.” (including footnoted
definition above)
Proposed WG Agreement
(to test with poll): "gTLD registration "thin
data" must be accessible without requestor
identification, authentication, or stated
purpose".
Action Item: Newcomers to RSVP to
Newcomer Tutorial invitation if you plan to attend
Action Item: Staff to launch poll the
test revised item 2) in statement of purpose and
revised 2 May agreement (the two Proposed WG
Agreements above). WG members to participate in
poll by COB Saturday 20 May.
Action Item: Rod Rasmussen
and Vaibhav Aggarwal to work together to define
what "unreasonably restrict legitimate access"
means in the context of this statement and propose
that definition to WG mailing list, preferably
before next week's WG call.
6)
Confirm next meeting date: 23 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC
Meeting
Materials
Data
of Record Proposal
Charter
Question 5 - Handout - For17MayCall.pdf
KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-9May2017.pdf and doc
9 May Call Poll Results
-
PDF of
Poll Questions: Poll-from-9MayCall.pdf
SurveyMonkey
Summary Poll Results: SummaryResults-Poll-from-9MayCall.pdf
SurveyMonkey
Raw Data Poll Results: RawDataResults-Poll-from-9MayCall.zip and XLS
_______________________________________________
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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
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.orghttps://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170517/81fb1e30/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list