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

Volker Greimann vgreimann at key-systems.net
Tue Sep 5 08:32:32 UTC 2017 

I just think it is valid to point out that an ICANN staff response does 
not equal the consensus position of the community. It is the chosen 
interpretation chosen by ICANN at this time but it is not clear that 
this definition would hold up in court if and enforcement action based 
on it were challenged.

So lets take anything not based on community consensus with a pinch of 
salt. To me, optional means optional.

Volker


Am 05.09.2017 um 02:08 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
>
> 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 
> 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.
>
> TheWG 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:%28215%29%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
>
> *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
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> 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

-- 
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170905/8e5987cf/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/20170905/8e5987cf/image001-0001.gif>

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