<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490101127081_525220" dir="ltr">I have a hard time understanding what very stakeholder wants. If every group of stakeholder could write down how they see the new RDS functioning, just by doing a Venn diagram, we could better understand what we have in common and what we need to foncus on to reduce differences of opinion.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490101127081_525220" dir="ltr">But that would require more work from already busy people. I think though, it could give us a more tangible view of what we are up against. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490101127081_525220" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490101127081_525220" dir="ltr">My .02 cents<br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490101127081_525220" dir="ltr"> </div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490101127081_525218"> </div><div class="signature" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490101127081_525216">Nathalie </div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 9:45 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container">On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:01:50PM -0500, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:<br clear="none">> Except that is not the only approach to the problem nor the ones exclusively used by DP authorities (i.e. Twitter). That is why I asked the question I did and why I will be lobbying them directly for whois privacy for free. <br clear="none">> <br clear="none"><br clear="none">But I thought the point of what we were doing was to make some<br clear="none">proposals for what to mask and how -- basically, that's what<br clear="none">differential access does. And I also thought we were at the beginning<br clear="none">of that effort (much as it frustrates me the rate at which we move).<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> The question of whether fields are optional or can be "masked" is inherently part of this discussion. <br clear="none">> <br clear="none"><br clear="none">That's just conflating two different things. The first thing is to<br clear="none">ask whether something should be collected _at all_. Then one can ask,<br clear="none">if something is collected, who may obtain it and under what<br clear="none">circumstances. This latter is the "masking" of which you speak. And<br clear="none">it's all implemented as it currently is because whois is brain-dead.<br clear="none">So let us not be restricted to the functionality we can get from a<br clear="none">primitive protocol that had already been extended well beyond its<br clear="none">design constraints more than 20 years ago.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none">> To enable third-parties to communicate directly to resolve and troubleshoot problems. <br clear="none"><br clear="none">I suggest that's already there.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> To enable third-parties to report abuse or security incidents so they may be resolved. <br clear="none"><br clear="none">This too.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> To enable users and entities to have information to adjudicate an entity is who they say they are (for instance phishing, scams, fake news). <br clear="none">> <br clear="none"><br clear="none">I find it impossible to imagine using the whois for this purpose, so<br clear="none">I'd like a use description for this. Since it's not authenticated or<br clear="none">authenticatable information anyway, as there are no signatures and so<br clear="none">on, it seems a pretty poor way to do it. This is partly included in<br clear="none">the purposes however when we discuss X.509 certificates.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> ICANN isn't just a business to confer domain names. Its a quasi-regulatory body over a "commons" and a natural monopoly. The purposes must be viewed beyond the prism of the mere registrar-consumer relationship as many interests are relevant and just as important. <br clear="none">> <br clear="none"><br clear="none">While I strongly agree that the purposes need to be rather wider than<br clear="none">the domain name industry, I'm uncomfortable with both of the claims of<br clear="none">quasi-regulatory authority, the notion of the Internet as a commons.<br clear="none">The root zone is indeed a natural monopoly, though.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Best regards,<div class="yqt3699957111" id="yqtfd28570"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">A<br clear="none"><br clear="none">-- <br clear="none">Andrew Sullivan<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>