[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dependencies on other policies and doing the right thing (was Re: Domain Name Certification was Re: Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Meeting - 9 January at 17.00 UTC)

[Paul Keating]

I am sorry but i have a conflict today. 

I will not be able to be on the call. 

Sincerely,
Paul Keating, Esq.

> On Jan 9, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:08:34AM +0800, David Cake wrote:
>> 
>>    removing information which would be of only advisory value to the
>> validation process of organisation and Extended Validation
>> certificates should have no significant effect on the validation of
>> the certificates that underpin TLS. See section 11.2.2 *
> 
> I think I disagree with the above claim about "no significant effect",
> and I want to make some observations about why and about what we are
> doing here.
> 
> I think there are two ways of looking at what we are doing here.  One
> of them is that we're just renovating the existing policies on the
> assumption that the existing framework basically functions but needs
> to be brought up to date, and therefore we can evaluate things without
> thinking about how others' dependencies might change.
> 
> The second of them is that we are altering the existing policies and
> assumptions because we are convinced that the current arrangements are
> broken and need signficiant reconsideration.  But of course, if this
> is what we are doing, then others' policies and procedures that are
> built atop the current RDS are necessarily subject to improvement
> _too_, if only the stuff we're deciding about gets better.
> 
> I believe that the current effort is to look at current uses, yes, but
> not to assume that those uses will remain unchanged after the
> alterations this WG proposes are effected.  For the current case, for
> instance, whether the RDS is actually a use case for certification
> authorities is one question.  Whether we can create the conditions for
> an RDS such that the information is both more useful and less "leaky"
> than the current whois is and entirely separate question.
> 
> If that is true, then it yields a different (not quite contrary, but
> close) conclusion to David's above: removing information that us
> currently only advisory could nevertheless reduce the utility for
> those other systems.  We ought in such a case to ask not what is
> _currently_ done, but what could be done if the RDS actually worked
> given the (legitimate) purposes to which people want to put the RDS.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg