<p dir="ltr">+1 Shane </p>
<p dir="ltr">Best Regards<br>
@__f_f__<br>
<a href="http://about.me/farell">about.me/farell</a> <br>
________________________________.<br>
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Le 27 juil. 2016 13:27, "Shane Kerr" <<a href="mailto:shane@time-travellers.org">shane@time-travellers.org</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">All,<br>
<br>
[ Apologies for the length. I need get back to my actual job, so don't<br>
have time to make this shorter. ]<br>
<br>
I propose that:<br>
<br>
* We should have a way to reject some use cases<br>
* Part of that motivation should be whether it is actually needed for<br>
DNS<br>
<br>
This is not important now, but it will be at some point. It might be<br>
helpful to keep this in mind as we work on use cases.<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
My thinking is that we have three basic types of use cases:<br>
<br>
Primary<br>
=======<br>
These use cases are necessary to actually be able to use the DNS<br>
itself. There are very few of these - almost all around configuring<br>
data that is needed for the DNS protocol to work.<br>
<br>
For example, you can get a domain in <a href="http://NL.EU.ORG" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">NL.EU.ORG</a> with only an e-mail<br>
address, and this is not published anywhere. (Even the e-mail address<br>
is not strictly necessary. One could set up a system based strictly on<br>
login to a web page.)<br>
<br>
The recent thought-experiment (aborted because it is not in our<br>
work plan) about finding the minimum set of data needed to run the DNS<br>
would have been a good start for defining these use cases.<br>
<br>
Incidental<br>
==========<br>
The vast majority of use cases that we see today exist only as an<br>
artifact of the way that WHOIS works.<br>
<br>
A long time ago a system was established that publishes certain<br>
information; without much thought about the long-term impact of the<br>
setup. Over the years people have found all kinds of creative, useful,<br>
and nefarious things to do with this information. However, storing or<br>
accessing this information has very little or nothing to do with<br>
actually making DNS work.<br>
<br>
For example, the DNS protocol certainly does not care what my fax<br>
number is, but anyone who looks up my domain name will see it. (Don't<br>
worry, I won't be doxed! I don't have a fax because this isn't 1986.)<br>
Likewise DNS software doesn't care when a domain was created. And so on.<br>
<br>
The use cases here include using RDS to track down criminals, research<br>
trademark disputes, create mass-mailing portfolios, looking for domain<br>
drop dates, and most of what people actually use WHOIS for today.<br>
<br>
Note that I definitely include technical uses that are outside of the<br>
needs of the DNS protocol itself. So, for example, having a way to<br>
contact a DNS operator when something is wrong falls into this category.<br>
<br>
Theoretical<br>
===========<br>
We have seen a couple of proposed use cases that seem to be ideas that<br>
people have for useful or harmful ways that RDS can be used, but that<br>
do not exist today (at least not that anyone can fully document).<br>
<br>
For example, there seems to be a desire to use the RDS as a way to<br>
issue warrants for information about registrants. While this may be<br>
useful, this is not possible today (even with RDAP, I note). Likewise<br>
concerns about using RDS to generate to generate lists of political<br>
enemies probably fits into this category.<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Discussion<br>
==========<br>
<br>
I bring this up because eventually we should be able reject certain use<br>
cases. (As an NCUC member, I expect to push back hard against a lot of<br>
use cases defined for business or law-enforcement purposes.)<br>
<br>
I think that what I called "primary" use cases have to be accommodated.<br>
I think there may be some disagreement about the details, but these<br>
should be relatively easy to come to consensus on.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, I think that both what I called "incidental" and<br>
"theoretical" use cases need to be motivated more strongly.<br>
<br>
There will probably be a natural tendency to prioritize existing uses<br>
of WHOIS - what I call "incidental" - because someone has some<br>
existing processes that depend on these. I think that this is wrong,<br>
and that any use of WHOIS outside of what is needed by DNS needs to be<br>
equally-well motivated.<br>
<br>
That's about it.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
--<br>
Shane<br>
<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>