[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 29 August Meeting

Tue Sep 5 00:08:52 UTC 2017

I know there has been a lot of subsequent traffic on this topic on the list over the (US) holiday weekend, but I just wanted to thank Jonathan for catching this.

This is not the first time that ICANN  has created confusion by using the label “optional “  to mean “required”.    In its public comments on the first proposed RDAP operational profile, the IPC noted:
Why define RDDS fields as OPTIONAL,
and then state that they are REQUIRED to be included in a response? In addition, several of the
fields listed as OPTIONAL are in fact required to be displayed under current RDDS contractual
provisions (compare, e.g., section 1.5.11, labeling as OPTIONAL such fields as postal code and
organization of the registrant or the technical or administrative contacts, with sections 1.4 and
1.5, Specification 4 of the Base Registry Agreement for new gTLD registries,
http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.pdf,
including all these fields in the “minimum output requirements” for display). Since these fields
are required to be displayed, it is extremely confusing to label them as OPTIONAL in the RDAP profile. The fact that in a particular record some of these fields may not contain any data (i.e.
they are blank) does not mean that they are Optional.

https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/pdfMA8kNzPr2j.pdf

ICANN’s response to this point in its staff report on the public comments received was as follows:

The definition of "Optional" is: RDDS fields defined as Optional in this document are REQUIRED to be included in a response, using the appropriate mapping as defined in Appendix B, when germane to the query and data exists in the Registry or Registrar database, as the case may be.
The definition of fields as "Optional" is based on the same definition as in the "Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications", https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-raa-rdds-2015-04-27-en, which is based on the optionality of fields in the technical standards.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rdap-profile-25apr16-en.pdf

So apparently there is a somewhat extensive pedigree for this Orwellian formulation ( “War is peace / freedom is slavery/optional is required .”)

Nevertheless, I hesitate to follow Jonathan’s suggestion that we continue to follow ICANN staff through the looking glass by agreeing that “optional” means “required”.   Even though that suggestion would lead to a substantive outcome that I consider preferable (as indicated by my repeated postings and poll contributions urging that, e.g., registrant phone number and physical address be required fields for collection, not optional), compounding the confusion caused by this misleading terminology may be too steep a price to pay.      I agree with Andrew Sullivan who noted “That is a pretty unnatural definition of "optional", and certainly not one that I expect will be understood by any implementer.”

On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net

[image001]
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: +1.202.355.7902 | met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/>
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of jonathan matkowsky
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 7:51 PM
To: Greg Aaron
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 29 August Meeting

It may be important to note from the April 27 advisory<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-raa-rdds-2015-04-27-en> on that Consensus Policy that if data exists for a given optional field,  the data MUST be shown. So I would suggest we define optional in that way.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com<mailto:gca at icginc.com>> wrote:
The first question of this poll asks whether Reseller Name must be supported by the RDS, and whether it MUST or MAY be provided for inclusion in the RDS by Registrars.

This issue was decided by the Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy, a Consensus Policy that went into effect 1 August 2017.  It says: “In responses to domain name object queries the following fields are considered optional … Reseller.”   https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-labeling-policy-2017-02-01-en<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-labeling-policy-2017-02-01-en>   The policy says that the system must support this field, it’s optional for registrars to fill in that field, and the field is displayed in output if the registrar provided the data.

The WG is accepting the results of that Consensus Policy regarding Registrar Abuse contacts.  So I suggest it also follow what that that same Consensus Policy says about for Reseller Name.

Thanks,
--Greg

**********************************
Greg Aaron
Vice-President, Product Management
iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com<http://Cybertoolbelt.com>
mobile: +1.215.858.2257<tel:(215)%20858-2257>
**********************************
The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 12:25 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 29 August Meeting
Importance: High

Dear all,

In follow-up to this week’s WG meeting, all RDS PDP WG Members are encouraged to participate in the following poll:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DKQTQHP

Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66086750/Poll-from-29AugustCall.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66086750/Poll-from-29AugustCall.pdf>

This poll will close at COB Saturday 2 September.  Poll results will be discussed in our 5 September WG meeting.

Please note that you must be a WG Member to participate in polls. If you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first contact gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> to upgrade to WG Member.

Regards,
Lisa

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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>

*******************************************************************
This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
*******************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170905/983276a6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170905/983276a6/image001-0001.gif>