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

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Tue Sep 5 08:48:25 UTC 2017 

I am sorry if this has already been noted but I believe some people are
confusing input with retention/display.


There is a difference depending on whether we are discussing data input or
data display.  

If INPUT is optional then

The FIELD MUST be displayed but there is no obligation on the part of the
registrant to complete the field.


If DISPLAY is optional

There is no obligation to display the field or its contents.



From:  <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann
<vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Date:  Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM
To:  <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 29
August Meeting

>     
>  
> 
> 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 ³optional ³  to mean ³required².    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-0
>> 9jan14-en.pdf,
>>  
>> including all these fields in the ³minimum output requirements² 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
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> ICANN¹s 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-25ap
>> r16-en.pdf 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> So apparently there is a somewhat extensive pedigree for this Orwellian
>> formulation ( ³War is peace / freedom is slavery/optional is required .²)
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Nevertheless, I hesitate to follow Jonathan¹s suggestion that we continue to
>> follow ICANN staff through the looking glass by agreeing that ³optional²
>> means ³required².   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 ³That is a pretty unnatural
>> definition of "optional", and certainly not one that I expect will be
>> understood by any implementer.²
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) |
>> www.onlineaccountability.net <http://www.onlineaccountability.net>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
>>  
>> T: +1.202.355.7902 | met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>>  
>> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP | 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> 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: ³In responses to domain name object queries
>> the following fields are considered optional Š Reseller.²
>> 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, it¹s 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:%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] 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 week¹s 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-29AugustC
>> all.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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-w>>
g
>>  
>  
>  
> -- 
> 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 <http://www.key-systems.net>  / www.RRPproxy.net
> <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com
> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>  / www.BrandShelter.com
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
> 
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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 <http://www.key-systems.net>  / www.RRPproxy.net
> <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com
> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>  / www.BrandShelter.com
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
> 
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://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 <http://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.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________ 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/20170905/8b45dc51/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/20170905/8b45dc51/image001-0001.gif>

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