[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPROTANT - Action Items and Notes from Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 17 May 2017

[John Horton]

+1 (Tim)

John Horton
President and CEO, LegitScript


*Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>  |  Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript>  |  Twitter
<https://twitter.com/legitscript>  |  *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>*
 |  Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>




On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Chen, Tim <tim at domaintools.com> wrote:

> since this is the ICANN RDS PDP we will obviously have to spend a few
> weeks defining "legitimate" before I can respond to your question :)
>
> I'm going to agree to disagree with Chris and Volker on this.
>
> Having the whois data sets together can specifically be used to help
> combat spam, phishing, malware and other forms of abuse.  Many people in
> this forum have pointed out real-life examples of how they do that so I
> won't repeat those here.
>
> These are the same benefits to having a  "parallel database" where in fact
> no such database actually exists today bc each individual registrar and
> registry is in possession of only a small fraction of the data (Verisign
> and GoDaddy possibly excepted here).   DomainTools makes no claim to 'be
> right', that is what your customer said.  Our data is accurate to the data
> that was at the registry or registrar at the time the record was seen.
> Basically the same language here that we all agreed on for 'authoritative'
> last night.  RDS is going to have the exact same issue.  Right?  Right.
>
> Which leaves the resale argument among the four that Volker stated.   I
> doubt this is the venue to debate the merits of business models based on
> DNS data (of which there are more than I can count), but I am not opposed
> to having that discussion in the right forum.
>
> Another +1 to Michael P's statement.
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
>> On 17/5/17 9:40 am, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>> > Yes, this is the common argument, however IMHO this is a red herring..
>> > There are more efficient ways for 'harvesters' to gain data, and
>> > others way to prevent such abuse..
>> >
>> > Again, IMHO this argument is another case of impacting the many
>> > legitimate users, for the sake of a few bad apples..
>> >
>> > And I havent' seen any arguments yet, of a case scenario which can't
>> > be addressed by other means..
>>
>> So to reverse this, what are the *legitimate* purposes of harvesting?
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170517/40fbdc15/attachment-0001.html>