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

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Tue Sep 5 08:49:22 UTC 2017 

+1

From:  <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date:  Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 6:21 AM
To:  "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
Cc:  "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 29
August Meeting

> 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-0
>> 9jan14-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-25ap
>> r16-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>
>>  
>> Steven J. Metalitz |Partner, through his professional corporation
>> T: +1.202.355.7902 <tel:(202)%20355-7902> |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: “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] 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
>> <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.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/20170905/ddf898cb/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/ddf898cb/image001-0001.gif>

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