<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Sadly, Susan, this is
one of the problems with not having transcripts of our week
long meetings. Neither one of us can check a transcript to
see if we were somehow operating in parallel universes.
Having been around ICANN for some time, you would have a much
better understanding than I about what was possible. I have a
distinct memory of Michele informing me I could not see the
draft 2013 RAA nor alter the outcomes, as the announcement was
about to happen. I cannot quote anyone else really without
seeking their consent.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">As for thick/thin
WHOIS, it took me a while to figure out what all these systems
meant in terms of data flow and rights enforcement. If you
are telling me that I could have showed up in Buenos Aires and
said, Ok guys, we have to throw out all thick registries, then
clearly I missed an opportunity. Chalk that one up to being
under-resourced on the civil society side...mea culpa.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Best <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande"></font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-06-30 5:25, Susan Kawaguchi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D39A30F2.64EAA%25susank@fb.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<div>Hi Stephanie, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My recollection of the EWG work is very different from
yours. We were given the mandate to reimagine the WHOIS and I
do not remember anything being out of scope. The WHOIS review
team was definitely bound by AOC to limit our review and many
things were out of scope which is why I found the work on the
EWG refreshing. In fact, Steve Crocker frequently reminded us
not to limit our thinking to the existing structures and
requirements but after examining many use cases we found that
there was good reason to require the collection of much of the
same information. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do agree that this PDP WG should go through a similar
process of reviewing and deliberating and come to their own
conclusions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best, </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Susan Kawaguchi</div>
<div>Domain Name Manager </div>
<div>Facebook Legal Dept. </div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a></a>>
on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, June
29, 2016 at 10:58 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a></a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Apologies, and some reflections on
requirements<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I have not
responded either to Andrew's excellent post. As a
member of the EWG, representing the privacy rights
constituency, I must say that I was faced with an
embarrassment of riches on that group in terms of
things to argue about. Fellow EWG members will likely
be willing to back me up that I gave it my best shot
in terms of pushback. The central model was not one I
spent much energy on, being non-technical and thus
requiring backup support which was difficult to
arrange given our confidential operations. Meeting
number 2 I gave up on that one. IN particular, since
I did not understand the rationale that was driving
the thick vs thin work that was ongoing and out of
scope for our discussions (done deal), the actual
mechanism that would drive us to a thin model that
seemed to me desirable from a privacy perspective
appeared to be out of reach. Similarly, since the
2013 RAA was out of scope and contained masses of
embedded policy decisions that had never gone through
a proper pdp process that I could find, tiered access
using RDAP appeared to be the only hope. Having
worked on authentication issues for a long time, I
have some notion about the cost and complexity issues
for what I would want under this model, which is why I
will be harping on costs and who pays (file under fair
warning) because I don't like working on something for
five years only to be told at the end of it that Oops,
we can't afford this, who is going to pay? So
sorry.....<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">However, we
are supposed to be the group that is looking at the
issue de novo. We are supposed to be paying attention
to the SSAC and Article 29 documents which,
coincidentally both tell us to "figure out what the
purpose of collecting, using, and storing registration
data is and then we will tell you how to build and
what to build" (loosely translated). "What to build"
is a very important trio of words for those of us who
are policy oriented and not technology oriented,
because the concept of what we are doing creates a
gestalt that influences policy choices, mostly
negatively in my view. If I may give another example
in the privacy field, we still talk about "video
surveillance" to describe our security camera
technologies, summoning up images of the decades old
video cameras and tapes we used to have. This
prevents deeper questioning of data flows and
ancillary inputs, making the privacy choices seem
deceptively simple. This is why I am so enthused
about Andrew's post, it helps me understand how to go
back to a de novo approach.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">In my view,
the thorough debates of the EWG on various issues
should have been done in public. The presentations we
gave were cheery but lean on detail and choices, in my
view. Furthermore, as the lone privacy
representative, I could have used a Caspar Bowden or a
Ross Anderson or a Kyle Rannenberg or an Ian Goldberg
in my corner, to name just a couple of the folks I
yearned to consult but could not (and not to mention
Andrew Sullivan whom I do not know personally).
<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I would be
happy to introduce the Charter change proposal at
Council, once we have figured out what the desirable
change might be. Let us please face the reality that
we do not have the number of multidisciplinary lateral
thinkers in our PDP that it would take to figure this
all out, and not be embarrassed about going back and
forth on the Charter. No aspersions being cast on the
Charter drafting group, or our collective failure to
comment beyond putting markers in for our own siloed
issues, and our own siloed understanding of
"requirements".</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie
Perrin<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-06-29 21:04, Gomes,
Chuck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4AF86B44@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Andrew,
I am sorry to take so long to respond to your very thoughtful message but as you know I have been pretty busy here in Helsinki. It seems to me personally that you make some suggestions that could possibly be constructive to the work ahead but I have two primary concerns:
1. I am pretty sure that it would require a charter change. To do that would require going back to the GNSO Council with the proposed changes and seeking their approval. That is something that is not out of the question but it could cause some delays and I would want to make sure that there is strong WG support for doing so. Also, I think we need to remember that a lot of very smart people spent quite a bit of time developing the framework that resulted in the charter so I think we should consider possible changes with that in mind.
2. My understanding is that EWG debated things like you are suggesting quite intensely. As you know I was not a member of the EWG but Lisa has provided some thoughts about that I include below.
" It might be useful to reflect upon the EWG's experience with system modeling. After starting with use cases, some EWG members needed a system model against which to test principles on purposes, data needs, and associated privacy, access, and accuracy issues. This led to the EWG's Initial Report proposing both a set of principles and an Aggregated RDS system model to support those principles - but without much explanation of the ARDS. Over the year that followed, the EWG evaluated half a dozen system models, drilling deeper into two (Federated and Synchronized) to examine feasibility and costs before recommending the SRDS. Both SRDS and FRDS models use RDAP; neither stores data in a single physical location. While the SRDS is a "thick" storage model where queries are served from synchronized data, the runner-up FRDS actually uses "thin" registries, querying data from registrars and validators in real-time.
"While some possible requirements may reflect a particular system model - for example, those drawn from today's WHOIS policies -- our PDP WG has yet to consider whether to recommend a next-gen system. But no matter what model we recommend, perhaps we can learn from the EWG's experience. First, while envisioning a possible new model early on was helpful to some, reaching agreement on a recommended model was not possible until the EWG was nearly finished, following feasibility and cost analysis. Second, while each had pros/cons, both models were found to be capable of supporting the EWG's principles. In other words, model choice did not drive the EWG's principles - principles and criteria such as cost drove the EWG's choice of model."
I want to add to Lisa's thoughts my own personal opinion: I don't think the issue of Federated v. Synchronized is a closed issue. My understanding is that the final recommendation in the EWG report could have been more the result of the desire to finish the work than a strong consensus. Whether I am right on that or not, our WG can consider both and make our own decision between either one or some variation.
Finally, I want to encourage all WG members to share your thoughts on Andrews comments and on my responses above.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:04 PM
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Apologies, and some reflections on requirements
Dear colleagues,
Apologies first. I'm not going to be in Helsinki. I'm in the middle of a move from NH back to Toronto, and it turns out that my movers'
understanding of, "I need to leave on $date," entails arranging things such that goods will arrive after $date. Alas, in this case the goods arrive Monday. I will attempt to follow the ICANN meetings remotely next week, but I expect it will be tricky.
I have been deeply dissatisfied with the way the work is going, and I believe it is because I see a mismatch in what we are trying to do and the kind of system we are trying to do it to. In particular, I think we are trying to treat the RDS as a single monolithic system, and attempting to build "requirements" that match that assumption. Here is an effort to sketch why I think that. I didn't have time to write a short note, &c. &c. Sorry this is long.
Since the very introduction of the competitive-registrar model (and arguably before that), the RDS has been a distributed database. It is far less successful than the other distrubuted database we all know and love -- DNS -- but it is nevertheless distributed.
The distribution comes from different parties having various parts of the data. In so-called "thin" registries, this was always the case.
The registry has names and nameservers, and since the invention of registrars knows who the registrar is. But if you wanted to know certain kinds of data, you had to ask the registrar in question.
Because in (say) 1999-2001 nobody had anything better than the whois/rwhois/whois++ protocol(s) to deliver this kind of data, a whole bunch of bad compromises got enshrined in policy. First, we continued to use whois and its descendents (anything on port 43) as the model for all of this. The plain fact is that whois was obsolete nearly at birth. It's a terrible protocol, and should be taken behind the ice house and put out of its misery.
Second, in order to "fix up" whois, clients were created all over the Internet that built in a bunch of assumptions about whom to ask for what data. The consequence of this was that clients routinely got bad data as they queried the wrong server. Old registrar data hung around even after a transfer. When I worked on the org transition from Verisign to PIR in 2003 (?), it took a long time before whois clients stopped asking Verisign about org data. And so on.
Third, in an attempt to hack around the above technical flaws in an already-obsolete protocol, "thick whois" gained popularity in possibly the worst possible arrangement known to data science. Instead of insisting that registries hold the data and that registrars and everyone else treat the registry data as The Truth, we created "thick"
whois in registries _without allowing registrars to stop their service_. Any half-competent database person will tell you that storing "the same data" in two places that don't have tight connections is an excellent way to create data inconsistency, but is not a good way to arrive at the truth. (Latterly, as though illustrating the tendency of people to double down on bad ideas, there have been suggestions that ICANN should run the One Giant RDS of the Universe and hold all the data in a central place. What could possibly go wrong?)
The thread running through this history of error is the idea that the RDS is one system. But like the DNS, it only appears to be one system. It's actually a "distributed database", where in this case the distribution is separable on organization lines. That is, registries -- including ICANN, who can be thought of in this case as both the registry and registrar for the root zone -- have some data.
Registrars have some other data. Resellers and privacy/proxy services have yet other data. In many cases, the data does not need to be shared across these organizational lines to make it queryable by humans.
The reason that isn't clear to most of us is because whois -- the RDS we use today -- _was_ designed as a monolithic system. It was designed that way because back when it was created -- RFC 812 is from _1982_! -- the database _was_ a monolithic database. Whois (the protocol and the client program) continues to have all the deficiencies for distributed use that you might expect of a program or protocol designed to talk to exactly one authoritative service.
Whois++ and rwhois attempted to graft on to this basic protocol some
distributed operation, but the graft didn't really take and the ornamental shrub now looks like a weed.
People have nevertheless internalized the whois-based thinking, which is why we keep asking things like, "What data should be collected?"
In a distributed system like this, that's barely interesting, for the commercial interests in this case all militate against collecting data that nobody needs for any function. Instead, we should ask what data should be collected _by different actors_. This implicitly involves describing what those actors are doing to require the data.
The nice thing, of course, is that protocol designers have done _a lot_ of this work for us, when they were working on RDAP. They did this because they were trying to come up with use cases for the protocol, which finally did away with the monolithic-system thinking of whois and offers us a protocol designed precisely to work in the distributed-database environment that is the actual registration system. That we even still have a work step that involves evaluating what protocol we're going to use for all this makes me a little ill.
It seems to me that we can just say that we have to embrace the distributed-database fact. For first, it's a fact of how registration actually works now. If we don't agree with that, I think we should give up. Second, it's consistent with how every single other thing on the Internet that has not crashed and burned works. The Internet cannot scale depending on monolithic systems. And nobody has the power to impose one anyway.
Once we have done that, there are still important policy issues about what data ought to be collected by anyone, under what conditions they might reveal it to someone else (and who that someone else is), and so on. But there are empirical tests for whether some of the answers people are proposing really match the distributed nature of the system. If they don't, we can close off those avenues of inquiry, because they'll never be productive.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=tyblCirrtbvSj97cc17NFyaD6X219nVl0GXQWlFWkXM&s=M8CMTX36mixkDN5jXQOJi6XTzgmXQNnNxk9gJ-vWByY&e=">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=tyblCirrtbvSj97cc17NFyaD6X219nVl0GXQWlFWkXM&s=M8CMTX36mixkDN5jXQOJi6XTzgmXQNnNxk9gJ-vWByY&e=">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>