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

Tue Sep 5 06:42:07 UTC 2017

@Greg it is great to point out these three options as it really depicts out
what is now confusing many. If possible we can do the poll again taking
this into account or discuss it in the next PDP WG call.

Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.

Le 5 sept. 2017 05:21, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> a écrit :

A few modest observations:

1.  I expect that most (if not all) who answered "optional" in past polls
had the more "layperson" definition in mind ("answer if you want to").
Thus, it would not be fair to count their answers as "ICANN optional."
2.  "ICANN optional" is a valid state (or category), different from
"mandatory" or "layperson optional."

Mandatory: You must have a valid answer (e.g., if an email address is
mandatory, you must have an email address and you must supply it, If you
don't have an  email address, you'll need to get one to proceed)

ICANN optional: If you have a valid answer, you must supply it (e.g., if
"Reseller" is ICANN-optional, you must supply the Reseller name if you know
a Reseller was involved).

Layman optional: If you have a valid answer, you can choose whether or not
to supply it. (e.g., if Skype address is Layman-optional, and you have a
Skype address, you don't have to supply it (e.g., because you don't want to
use it for domain-related communication)).

3.  Future polls should take all 3 states into account.
4.  We need another term for "ICANN-optional" (since "optional" is far from
clear, despite the amount of precedent in ICANN-land)
5.  We should clarify absolutely that "optional" means "Layman-optional"
(just to get that out of the way).

Any ideas for what to call "ICANN-optional"?  ("Smoke 'em if you got 'em"
has a certain ring to it, but wouldn't be taken seriously.)  Maybe
"Required if present"?

Greg

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com> wrote:

> 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 <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>*
>
>
>
> *[image: image001]*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz *| *Partner, through his professional corporation*
>
> T: +1.202.355.7902 <(202)%20355-7902> | 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-bounce
> s 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> 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
> 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
>
> mobile: +1.215.858.2257 <(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-bounce
> s at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lisa Phifer
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2017 12:25 AM
> *To:* 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/Po
> ll-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 to upgrade to WG Member.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Lisa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> 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.
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170904/5f71d76a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170904/5f71d76a/image001-0001.gif>