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

[allison nixon]

>>You are ascribing motives to people that simply are not there. I do not
believe there is anyone participating in this working group because they
wish to, as you term it, “break technology”.

it's obviously ignorance rather than malice. Even when disregard was shown
to the security implications, it was not based in malice. Now that
disregard is being shown to basic functionality and troubleshooting, it's
still not malice and now it's very very funny.

Anyone who actually works with DNS would understand immediately why
labeling nameservers and A records as PII is laughable. For the rest of
you, below is a link with a very basic tutorial on how domains are actually
resolved. This is stuff we learn in our first year of school or work, and
should be at least partially understood by anyone that fancies themselves
an internet legislator.

Feel free to skip to the section labeled "Distributing the DNS Database:
Zone Files and Delegation". For any piece in that chain, globally revoking
public unauth access would take down the entire domain name system. This is
why the proposal is hilarious.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc772774(v=ws.10).aspx

See, people here are so quick to point out situations where a feature
mildly annoyed them one time, therefore the feature should be dismantled.
But there is so much ignorance of how the features are actually used. If we
were real politicians, the late night shows would be writing skits about
this.

This debate over thin data is a culmination of this absurdity. I am
enjoying it thoroughly. Please continue.

On May 31, 2017 2:45 AM, "Ayden Férdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Allison,
>
> You are ascribing motives to people that simply are not there. I do not
> believe there is anyone participating in this working group because they
> wish to, as you term it, “break technology”.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Principle on Proportionality for "Thin
> Data"access
> Local Time: May 31, 2017 4:57 AM
> UTC Time: May 31, 2017 3:57 AM
> From: elsakoo at gmail.com
> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
> >>The Internet is a distributed system.  If you want to play in its
> namespace, you need to operate things in a way that comports well with
> distributed operations.  If the ICANN community has really drifted so far
> from a bone-deep understanding of distributed operations that we see a real
> problem with thin data, then I fear we are the wrong people to talk about
> this topic at all.
>
> The overarching theme of this group is one that cares so much about
> ideology they are willing to break technology they clearly don't work with.
> And when technology is explained to them by people who work with it, they
> care very little about the real world impact or otherwise willfully
> disbelieve its importance. They do not care for giving decent workarounds
> either.
>
> I joined this group because it's going to break fundamental tech that I
> work with, not because I care about ICANN or want to have any involvement
> whatsoever with ICANN. The moment this group stops threatening to ruin
> things is the moment I disappear. This group is so dysfunctional it's
> getting the attention of average tech workers.
>
> Parts of this group unironically believe that nameservers are PII and must
> be private. Goodbye NS records. Alright. I fully support and stand by
> Stephanie Perrin's proposal to treat all nameserver data as PII and
> restrict public access accordingly. This will be a victory for privacy
> advocates everywhere, and will finally solve our privacy problems. I think
> we should put it up for a vote.
>
> I believe we should also restrict people's ability to externally and
> programmatically verify the expiration date of a domain or its transfer
> status. Those stats have certainly never caused problems when neglected.
> Let's go all the way with this. Everything is PII now. We will make ICANN
> great again.
>
> On May 30, 2017 10:55 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If we get rid of status, and expiry and created dates (and probably
>> updated too) then we significantly reduce the value of the tool for the
>> purposes of troubleshooting DNS resolution problems.
>>
>> That tool is valuable to network and dns resolver operators all over the
>> Internet.  I have used it many times in performing such jobs, and every one
>> of those fields is helpful in addressing technical failures. It has been
>> helpful for those purposes, for example, when certain large companies have
>> accidentally lost control of their domain: it's way better if the IT
>> department can say to the CEO, "Looks like something is wrong with the
>> domain -- it was just updated," as opposed to, "No, I have no idea why
>> giantbankcorp.com suddenly stopped working."
>>
>> The Internet is a distributed system.  If you want to play in its
>> namespace, you need to operate things in a way that comports well with
>> distributed operations.  If the ICANN community has really drifted so far
>> from a bone-deep understanding of distributed operations that we see a real
>> problem with thin data, then I fear we are the wrong people to talk about
>> this topic at all.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
>>
>> On May 30, 2017, at 20:26, Rob Golding <rob.golding at astutium.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> You're seriously proposing that registrars should not disclose the
>> >> status of a domain, like whether it is registered or not?
>> >
>> > "status" in the whois/rds context is the field called status which
>> lists the "locks" (or lack of - hence the security /abuse issue) of a domain
>> >
>> > If it's not registered it wont be in the database at all
>> >
>> > e.g.
>> >
>> > whois blahblah123.com
>> > No match for domain "BLAHBLAH123.COM".
>> >
>> > ^ This (potential) domain is not registered
>> >
>> > whois a-n-other.com
>> > Domain Status: OK
>> >
>> > ^ This domain is not locked
>> >
>> > Rob
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20170531/3d7586c1/attachment.html>