[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Principle on Proportionality for "Thin Data"access

allison nixon elsakoo at gmail.com
Tue May 30 22:27:21 UTC 2017 

This leads me to my next question. Should members of the public be allowed
to resolve DNS records at all without authentication and without prior
authorization?


>>Data that is gleaned from a file related to an individual, ie in this
case their registration data, even if it is nameservers and the like, is
their personal data

Very good point. I applaud registrars who want to take a stand for privacy
and stop sharing all nameserver data. It should remain completely private,
so members of the public can stop resolving their domains.*

*This compliment only applies to registrars in Spamhaus's list of top
abused registrars. For the rest of you, if you want to do that you are
essentially shutting down your entire business. If that is really what you
want.............



On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Chris Pelling <chris at netearth.net> wrote:

> Rob,
>
> As I said, it was a way of abuse.  Not all DNS providers (or registrars
> for that matter) point out that the persons email address could be placed
> into the DNS zone file. Nor mentioning that it could be changed for that
> matter.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Rod Rasmussen" <rod at rodrasmussen.com>
> *To: *"Chris Pelling" <chris at netearth.net>
> *Cc: *"allison nixon" <elsakoo at gmail.com>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 30 May, 2017 23:07:43
>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Principle on Proportionality for
> "Thin        Data"access
>
> Sorry, that’s not likely a valid example.  That information is made public
> by publishing it in the DNS in the first place, by the direct decision of
> the publisher (DNS operator).  If the nameserver records aren’t in the DNS,
> the domain doesn’t work and if the nameserver records aren’t in the DNS,
> you can’t get the SOA record.  All I need is the domain name to start with,
> dig the nameservers for the domain, and then dig the SOA.  Importantly, I
> DO NOT NEED “whois” or anything else similar to get to these data records,
> so these are all public data points that anyone can anonymously access at
> any scale for all operational domains on the Internet.  Publishing the same
> data (nameserver related to domain) in a different database (whois, RDS,
> whatever) doesn’t make it more public - it’s been put out there already.
>
> For those of you not familiar with the intricacies of how DNS SOA (Start
> of Authority) records work, the third entry on each line in the examples
> below is actually an e-mail address, where the first dot should be replaced
> by an “@“ symbol.  So for the first one, the e-mail address for the entity
> claiming authority over the gmail.com zone is dns-admin at google.com.  As
> Chris mentioned, these are going to largely be technical contacts, but not
> always.  However, that’s the purpose for the field - technical authority
> over the zone, so putting your “personal” information into that field would
> mean you want to publicly publish your e-mail address in the DNS so anyone
> can reach it.  I don’t think we’re trying to tell people to *not* do things
> like that in this WP.  Regardless, you have to supply a validly formatted
> SOA record for DNS to work, including an entry that is plausible as an
> e-mail address for that field.  That doesn’t require the e-mail address to
> be answered, monitored, or even deliverable, so you could put
> test.test.com (test at test.com) in there if you don’t want things to be
> sent to you.  If I remember right, some ccTLD’s would require that you
> actually answer a query to the SOA e-mail “back in the day” to delegate
> your domain - not sure if any do anymore.  For far more arcane trivia
> around SOA records etc. see the wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/
> wiki/SOA_Resource_Record) or this handy tutorial (
> https://bobcares.com/blog/understanding-soa-records/).  It goes all the
> way back to the original DNS spec in RFC 1035.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rod
>
>
> On May 30, 2017, at 2:22 PM, Chris Pelling <chris at netearth.net> wrote:
>
> ok - a thought :
>
> Thin data includes nameservers, being able to *mass* collect thin data
> gaining NS information then allows you to do a DIG of a SOA record on the
> DNS service to gain the email address of the hostmaster :
>
> Some examples (radomly picked from the list)  :
> gmail.com :
> SOA     ns1.google.com. dns-admin.google.com. 157458041 900 900 1800 60
> netearthone.com
> SOA     ns1.netearth.net. root.netearthone.com. 2016090201
> <(201)%20609-0201> 14400 3600 1209600 86400
> law.es
> SOA     ns1.eurodns.com. hostmaster.eurodns.com. 2016061402
> <(201)%20606-1402> 43200 7200 1209600 86400
> riskiq.net
> SOA     ns-1754.awsdns-27.co.uk. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900
> 1209600 86400
>
> Now as you can see - those above examples allow you to get (or build) an
> email list.  Most will normally point to the providers service, but, some
> that are DIY'ing their hosting, it might not be.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"allison nixon" <elsakoo at gmail.com>
> *To: *"nathalie coupet" <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 30 May, 2017 21:52:32
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Principle on Proportionality for
> "Thin        Data"access
>
> so can you name one specific example of how someone could abuse thin data?
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, nathalie coupet via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> *Abuse* is the improper usage or treatment of an entity
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity>, often to unfairly
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice> or improperly gain
>> benefit. In our context, abuse is the improper usage of WHOIS/RDS to
>> unfairly or improperly gain access to information or to game the system.
>>
>> Here are some of the overarching principles which should guide us when
>> building RDS:
>>
>> DATA LIFECYCLE                        PRIVACY PRINCIPLE
>>                     PROTECTION MEASURE
>> Collection                       Proportionality and purpose
>> specification                     Data minimisation, Data quality
>> Storage                   Accountability, Security measures, Sensitive
>> data               Confidentiality, Encryption, Pseudonomisation
>> Sharing and processing Lawfulness and fairness, Consent, Right of access
>>  Data access control, Data leakage prevention
>> Deletion                               Openness, Right to erasure
>>                                Retention, Archival, Erasure
>>
>>
>> If such principles are not respected, ICANN will be liable. Consumers
>> don't need to have all the thin data when making a query. This could
>> protect them and enable them to have access to the RDS without raising much
>> opposition.
>>
>> Now, we could discuss the possibility for broader query types. These
>> principles would still apply, but would be contextualized in order to take
>> into account new sets of parameters for each broader query. By increasing
>> granularity as much as possible, while applying these aformentioned
>> principles, we just might find a way to accomodate everyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nathalie
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 4:00 PM, John Horton <
>> john.horton at legitscript.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was going to reply to Natalie's email as well, but Paul's comments
>> capture my thoughts, so: *+1. *
>>
>> 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 Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:
>>
>> Natalie,
>>
>> Thank you for the email.  Im copying the list because i see others have
>> replied to your comment.
>>
>> I strenuously object to the concept.  We are discussing THIN DATA ONLY
>> HERE.  Unless someone can explain to me why any of this data set has
>> privacy concerns this is a non-issue.  I would certainly appreciate someone
>> explaining what, if any, privacy issues are perceived to be at issue here.
>>
>> Moreover, while you suggest that the idea escapes the need to declare a
>> purpose, it does nothing but reinforce a subjective criteria based system
>> in which the declared purpose is used to somehow limit the data being
>> retrieved.
>>
>> If i am missing something please let me know.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 30 May 2017, at 21:08, nathalie coupet via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> In the context of thin data, in view of the opposition of some to allow
>> unauthenticated access to all the thin data, the principle of
>> proportionality serves as an over-arching principle at this particular
>> phase in our work in order to protect data from abuse while not restricting
>> access.
>> Thin data must be proportionate to the query, be useful for that
>> particular query. All and any other thin data foreign to this query should
>> not be shared. This principle potentially avoids having to resort to
>> 'legitimate purposes' which cannot be verified for unauthenticated access.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nathalie
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 2:44 PM, "Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Because Nathalie was the originator and was unable to speak on the call,
>> I encourage her to describe the nature of the issue on this thread.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann. org
>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
>> bounces at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul
>> Keating
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 2:17 PM
>> *To:* Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com>; RDS PDP WG <
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Principle on Proportionality
>> for "Thin Data"access
>>
>> Im sorry to have missed the call but had a client engagement.
>>
>> Can someone briefly describe the nature of the issue?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>>
>> *From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@ icann.org
>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Lisa Phifer <
>> lisa at corecom.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:52 PM
>> *To: *RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Principle on Proportionality for "Thin
>> Data"access
>>
>>
>> All, per today's call action item:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Action Item: Nathalie Coupet and any other WG members who wish to do so
>> to propose to the WG list a new principle on proportionality for "thin
>> data." All WG members to comment on that proposed principle in advance of
>> next call. *we are starting a new thread here which anyone may reply to
>> if they wish to propose (or respond to) a new principle on proportionality
>> for "thin data" access.
>>
>> Best, Lisa
>> ______________________________ _________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing
>> list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/
>> listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________________
> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>


-- 
_________________________________
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170530/a9f821ed/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list