<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#333333">Dear Stephanie Perrin and Andrew,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#333333"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#333333">(inline)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I think these are
really important questions Andrew. Unfortunately when we talk
about privacy and data control, we often use idioms that are
technologically out of date (eg video surveillance, which conjures
up mental images of video tapes that have not been used in 15
years). To be clear, we need to talk about control of data
elements. Fortunately, despite a lot of FUD to the contrary,
the EU data protection authorities have focused on data
controllers and data processors, and we have good documents
with summaries for those concepts. They have not changed with
the new regulation, so they are still valid.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">If I understand RDAP
correctly, it would permit duly authorized data access from
anywhere, to elements that could be scattered. This would
match current data mining techniques. The problem, as I see
it, and I beg to be corrected if I am wrong, is how do we
manage a remote authorization scheme to individual data elements,
if indeed </font></font></p></div></blockquote><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">some data is held by the registrar, some by the
registry, and some (outside ICANN's remit, but an answer to
LEA demands) by the ISP?</font></font></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">I will start with the disclaimer that I am writing this WITHOUT a good understanding of the technical operations concerning the present RDAP nor about the advances in data mining technology.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">The question "where data resides" and if the design of RDAP is to make it easier to answer that question, and on a superficial level "data" here means Registration Data, this is very much becomes a whois design question.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">If some data is held by Registrar, some by Registry and some by the ISP, there may be a way of streamlining this by modifying the manner in which Registrant data is gathered and stored at the time of registration. Some attention to the VISA/MASTERCARD method of collecting and handling credit card information could help ICANN come up with a streamlined design for handling Registrant data. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">If such a model is to be emulated, a Registrant going to a sub-Reseller going through a Reseller going through a Registrar under a Registry would gather the Registrant data on a secure form interjected by an operator like Verisign, -verisign here is not to be confused with Verisign the Registry, or Verisign the RZM operator, but that division of Verisign which serves the secure form-, independent of and regardless of the insecurity of the Sub-Reseller's webspace. This could be verisign or even an IAB designed secure form. This verisign form ( I will call it the Verisign form, for illustration) could then be used to collect: </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">a) all Registrant data and then automatically distribute the basic data back to the Sub-Reseller and Reseller, basic + quasi-sensitive data to the Registrar under whom the Reseller operates and retain a copy of the above + Sensitive data with the Registry, while ultra-sensitive data, if any so categorised by any name, together with all of the above would stay only with ICANN. (the categorization of data as basic etc is arbitrary. This is a generalized description of how it would work, there may be existing classes and sub-classes or ICANN may come up with suitable sub-classes of Registrant data)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">b) The Sensitive and Ultra-sensitive user data alone could be gathered by the Verisign form after the basic data is collected by the Reseller in his own form that may be shared with the Registrar. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">This would prevent Registrant data abuse in a situation where there are a multitude of Resellers. The Resellers would retain the basic contact information for them the opportunity to maintain contact with their customers, Registrars would get a copy of whatever commercial data that they require from the Resellers or from their direct customers, the Registry would still retain most of the data with a copy for the ICANN in a database, and only ICANN retain the ultra-sensitive data, if there is any part of Registrant data is ultra-sensitive by any other name. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">This would require assurances from ICANN that it would enforce a well designed process involving a highly ethical team of community members to screen requests from Law and Order authorities anywhere to access data, and to determine what portion of data they would access. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">The caution needed here is that such a system may have to be well thought of, the privacy and security concerns to be examined in extensive detail, the commercial privileges concerning Registrant data prevailing among Resellers, Registrars and Registries have be examined, the ability of ICANN / Internet Community to judge the validity of Law and Order requests and the strength of ICANN to deny some requests if deemed necessary - all these aspects have to be examined in detail.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">If the question "where does data reside" extends beyond Registrant data, the answer would be far more complicated. That would draw the Internet Community's attention to questions concerning content in a very interesting way.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Sivasubramanian M </div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Cheers Stephanie</font></font><br>
</p><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<div>On 2016-07-16 1:00, Andrew Sullivan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Thanks, Stephanie, for the quick issue list. There's one thing that I
want to draw out here so that we can keep it foremost when thinking of
issues:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 12:05:10AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre> * Where the RDS (whether a central database or federated or completely
disaggregated) resides becomes important for law enforcement access.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>This "where data resides" issue is bound to vex us, no matter what
kind of policy we come up with. But it's really important to keep in
mind that the different styles of system design will yield very
different properties.
In the taxonomy I offered before
(<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/2016-June/000951.html" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/2016-June/000951.html</a>),
models I and V have a clear since answer to, "Where does the data
reside?" because they have a single database backing them up. In
models II-IV, however, the answer to, "Where does the data reside?" is
actually not entirely meaningful. There are multiple places where the
data are, and for data with respect to any given domain name each
datum might be in a different place. (Indeed, part of the design of
RDAP is precisely to make such arrangements easier to deal with.)
It is therefore better to try to find a way, consistent with all of
the various requirements documents, to answer some other questions.
I think these might be helpful in building use cases:
1. For any given datum, who has control of and access to the datum?
2. For any given datum, what are the conditions under which the
datum ought to be accessible?
3. For any given set of related data, how can it be accessed?
Notice that answering (3) will provides use cases for data access,
whereas (1) and (2) provide for limit conditions on how and when use
cases might be apply.
I hope these framing questions are helpful in figuring out which use
cases we can bring to bear on requirements.
Best regards,
A
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>