[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] CIRCL - Luxembourg CERT Statement on WHOIS

[Greg Shatan]

You were the one who dismissed the document with the back of your hand,
rather than engage with its substance.  I responded to the substance of
your email, which I would not call banal and pointless.  John’s response
was not banal and pointless either.

If you wish to leave while once again avoiding engaging in the substance of
either the document or the responses to your email, so be it.  I suppose a
casual insult directed to the last bit of discourse (which I hope your
recognized as sarcasm) and by extension to those engaged in it, adds that
final *frisson *to the moment — like turning on your heel and flinging your
cape over your shoulder as you stalk out the door.

However, should you reconsider, and wish to engage in an open-minded
discussion of the substance of the document and related matters, you will
of course be welcomed back.

Have a wonderful weekend!

Greg

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:45 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> If we are not going to focus on the document itself and analyse its
> contents for meaningful inputs and critical deficiencies, then I will
> remove myself from this thread. It is not worth my time engaging in this
> banal and pointless conversation.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 14 April 2018 12:38 AM, John Bambenek <jcb at bambenekconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
> Why not? Its not the most illegitimate reason someone here has dismissed
> the expertise of ACTUAL security and privacy professionals.
>
> --
> John Bambenek
>
> On Apr 13, 2018, at 17:34, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But John, they referred to a Recital when they meant to refer to an
> Article.  Isn’t that sufficient grounds to dismiss their concerns entirely?
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:25 PM John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> CIRCL as well as the many security and anti-abuse professionals on this
>> list are individuals charged with ACTUALLY protecting human rights on the
>> Internet.
>>
>> The fact that our expertise in this very area is routinely discarded if
>> not mocked is a large source of the consternation that continues in his
>> group.
>>
>> Its bad enough people on this list have taken to implying security
>> professionals are criminals and human rights violators... we’re now going
>> to imply the same of national computer emergency response teams?
>>
>> What does this say about the multistakeholder model when we keep
>> returning to this discussion where people are not only ignoring
>> stakeholders, but openly denigrating them?
>>
>> J
>>
>> --
>> John Bambenek
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2018, at 15:20, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> This publication is dependent on, and only cites, the GDPR's recitals.
>> While the recitals may inform the interpretation of the GDPR's articles,
>> they are not legally binding. Only the GDPR's articles are binding
>> instruments. I would also like to note that no human rights impact
>> assessment appears to have been conducted in the preparation of this
>> publication. If one had been, I am confident we would have seen that the
>> protection of the privacy rights of a domain name registrant outweigh the
>> claimed security risks.
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On 12 April 2018 7:47 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>> A good read from a European entity on why open and free access to whois
>> data is both essential AND legal under GDPR. And its coming from a state
>> sponsored entity.
>>
>> https://www.circl.lu/pub/tr-53/
>>
>> --
>> John Bambenek
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180413/4a130c12/attachment-0001.html>