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

Wed May 31 06:24:18 UTC 2017

Another name essentially DNS zone holds the dns records, one of which is the SOA record.

>From Chris on the move!

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:54 AM +0100, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

Email address in zone file?

Chuck

Sent from my iPhone

On May 30, 2017, at 6:27 PM, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com> wrote:

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 
http://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
http://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)  :

http://gmail.com :

SOA     http://ns1.google.com.
http://dns-admin.google.com. 157458041 900 900 1800 60

http://netearthone.com

SOA     http://ns1.netearth.net.
http://root.netearthone.com.
2016090201 14400 3600 1209600 86400

law.es

SOA     http://ns1.eurodns.com.
http://hostmaster.eurodns.com.
2016061402 43200 7200 1209600 86400

http://riskiq.net

SOA     ns-1754.awsdns-27.co.uk.
http://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,
 often to unfairly 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  |  Facebook  |  Twitter 
 |  Blog  |  Google+

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 [mailto: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@ http://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

______________________________ _________________

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

______________________________ _________________

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.

_______________________________________________

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.

_______________________________________________

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/20170531/ef46306d/attachment-0001.html>