<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">I think I agree with
Greg here on a couple of points.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I checked out the pdf
version (thanks for making this version available, it is
helpful) and I agree with the should/shall/must
clarifications. Further, I would propose the following
option:</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Requestors <b>must</b>
have access to thin data elements without either identifying
or authenticating themselves. It is recognized that some data
elements currently forming part of the thin data set may be
removed upon further deliberations on data elements.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">[I recognize that
anonymity is hard to find, but this makes explicit that if a
requester makes an effort to obscure his/her/their identity,
nothing can or should be done about it. It also makes
explicit that there is no need for authentication. The second
caveat is my usual one.....]</font></font><br>
</p>
<font size="+1">With respect to the next question, I really feel
like we are parachuting into operational concerns, without
necessarily dealing with the issues involved, at least for those
of us to whom "rate limiting" is not an everyday activity or term
we use. It is not the case that there are no policy issues
wrapped up in this, in my view.....once we establish that
"anonymous" unauthenticated access is fine, is there a risk that
there will be/is already wholesale vacuuming of data? What is the
downside of this? Would that be a violation of current RAA
requirements, or rather would the lack of it indicate a
violation? are there anti-competitive actions at play in rate
limiting? why was it (or more precisely, bulk access control)
introduced into the RAA in the first place, and do those issues
pertain today? these are questions that those of us not in the
business might ask (at least I am asking, and I was one of very
few non-commercial parties on the call today...I counted 2 but I
may have missed somebody)<br>
<br>
On a second unrelated note, I did the doodle polls for newcomer
needs, hoping you might be offering a basic skills on managing
WHOIS. No luck there, but I commend that to you as a potential
webinar....some of us (as may be clear by the questions above)
would like to understand better exactly who looks for what data
when and why, how that impacts the registrar/registry burden and
the systems they run, volume and metrics and $$$.....<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-05-09 22:28, Greg Aaron wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR13MB1843EC4455470BEE070D24A1D9EC0@BN6PR13MB1843.namprd13.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose">Dear Lisa and Chuck and everyone:<o:p></o:p></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">I
am wondering if this poll may be of limited utility because
we may be using the wrong words here, and the group may not
share a crucial common vocabulary.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">All
four options ask about “authentication” but we have not
defined what that means. Authentication is different from
“anonymous” access, and anonymous access is what we may
actually be trying to discuss. Note that the EWG recommended
“anonymous” access for thin data. The distinctions are
crucial. Authenticated access is not really anonymous, and
the two terms tend to be mutually exclusive.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">So,
can we please define those terms?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Also,
please note that the poll options use the term “should” --
but I think the word “must” was meant instead. “Must”
indicates something mandatory, a requirement. “Should”
does not mean a thing is required or mandatory – it is a
recommendation or opinion that can be ignored.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">There
is a standard reference we can use. The terms MAY, MUST,
MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are
defined in RFC 2119. (
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt</span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span></a><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"> ) RFC 2119 defined
those terms for use in all subsequent RFCs. The EWG was
careful to use the above terms according to RFC 2119 (see
Final Report, page 18). ICANN registry contracts, the TMCH
RPM Requirements, and other ICANN efforts have also used RFC
2119 as a definitional document. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Clear
definitions and choices of words really matter in
policy-making, and can help us all understand each other.
I’m also noting this stuff in email because the poll doesn’t
have a notes or comments field.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">All
best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">--Greg</span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">**********************************<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Greg Aaron<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Vice-President, Product
Management<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">iThreat Cyber Group /
Cybertoolbelt.com<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">mobile: +1.215.858.2257<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">**********************************<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">The information contained in
this message is privileged and confidential and
protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the message and deleting it
from your computer.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Lisa Phifer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 9, 2017 8:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation
for Poll from 9 May Meeting<br>
<b>Importance:</b> High<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In follow-up to today’s meeting, <b>all
RDS PDP WG Members</b> are encouraged to participate in the
following poll:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BNKJ55R">https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BNKJ55R</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Responses should be submitted through the
above URL. For offline reference, a PDF of poll questions can
also be found at:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078610/Poll-from-9MayCall.pdf">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078610/Poll-from-9MayCall.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>This poll will close at COB Saturday 13
May.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please note that you must be a WG Member to
participate in polls. If you are a WG Observer wishing to
participate in polls, you must first contact
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>
to upgrade to WG Member.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lisa<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>