[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 29 August Meeting
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Tue Sep 5 08:34:38 UTC 2017
I don't think we need to retake the polls. We just need to clarify that
when we said optional, we meant it in the real sense of the word, not
the ICANN-style interpretation-bending sense.
Volker
Am 05.09.2017 um 08:42 schrieb Farell Folly:
> @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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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>*
>
> **
>
> *image001*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional
> corporation*
>
> T: +1.202.355.7902 <tel:%28202%29%20355-7902> |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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
> 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
> <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.
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170905/775ab6c1/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/20170905/775ab6c1/image001-0001.gif>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list