<html>
<body>
Chuck has asked that this message by relayed to the WG mailing list as
input to today's meeting.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">From: "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@verisign.com><br>
To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>, Lisa Phifer
<lisa@corecom.com><br>
CC: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>,<br>
Michele Neylon -
Blacknight<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<michele@blacknight.com>,<br>
Susan Kawaguchi
<susank@fb.com><br>
Subject: RE: Poll Comments on Q3<br>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:37 +0000<br><br>
Thanks for doing this Greg. It is very helpful and will make it
easier for members to discuss it. To get discussion started I
inserted my personal comments in your message below.<br><br>
Chuck<br><br>
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>From:</b> Greg Aaron [gca@icginc.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 22, 2017 5:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Lisa Phifer; Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Marika Konings; Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Susan
Kawaguchi<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] RE: Poll Comments on Q3<br>
</font><br>
<a name="_MailEndCompose"></a>I may not be able to make tomorrow’s call
because of $dayjob. Chuck therefore asked me to explicate the
comments I submitted for poll question #3. My comments are about
the definition of "data of record." I don’t think the
definition serves needed purposes, and I don’t think the language is
salvageable.<br>
<br>
[Gomes] Thanks for making it clear that your concern is with the
definition so I encourage everyone to focus on the definition of 'data of
record', which you copy in the next paragraph.<br>
<br>
The proposed definition is:<br>
Data of record: "The data set at a given time relevant to a
given registration object that expresses the data provided in the
then-current registration for that object.” <br>
<br>
Some problems:<br>
<br>
The definition is very complex and confusing. It is so
self-referential that it does not seem to have meaning. A
“data object” is a set of data. So one could rephrase the
definition as: “A set of data that is relevant to a set of data that
expresses the data provided in the record for that set of
data.” What does that mean?<br><br>
[Gomes] I definitely agree that your rewording is complex and confusing
but will leave to others to comment on whether your rewording accurately
reflects the original wording.<br>
<br>
Aren't we simply talking about a registration record that is kept in a
specified place? How does a "data set"
"express" its own data? The data simply IS the
data. What's "relevant" and what is not? Data
that is "relevant" to an object might be data that that does
not appear in RDS output, or could be meta-data. <br>
<br>
The reason why we consider the concept of “data of record” is to identify
what data (i.e. what copy or source) should be referred to when people
want to know about a domain registration. (We might call these
official records or sources.) But the proposed definition
does not address the issue of what data should be referred to or relied
upon or trusted -- for legal situations or for example when there is a
discrepancy between the registrar's record and the registry's
record. (Also note: that is different from whether the record is
truthful or accurate, i.e. what we call at ICANN "inaccurate WHOIS
data", such as faked contact data.) The use of
terms like “data set” and “object” lend themselves to technical
discussion but not practical discussion or legal usage, but I suggest
that any definition must also be useful for practical and legal
purposes.<br><br>
[Gomes] I think the WG has already agreed to separate the issue of
accuracy and that will be covered in a subsequent charter question later
so I suggest we defer that topic. I agree that any definition must
eventually be useful for practical and legal purposes but I don't believe
it is possible to agree on that level of detail at this point in time
because there are too many options that could be decided regarding
implementation. We will have to decide what implementation methods
to recommend in Phase 3 and it is probably quite likely that we will need
to consider those in Phase 2 when we develop policy recommendations so as
to make sure any policy recommendations we make are implementable.<br>
<br>
What does "data object" mean here, and how can we use it if it
is not defined? Does it mean an EPP object? Or an RDAP
object? Both? Or neither? Maybe we should not use
"object" because that conflates data itself with the specific
way in which the data is formatted or transmitted, yoking our definition
to a specific technological implementation. <br>
<br>
The definition does not require the data to even be in a registry or at a
registrar. (It's data on some record somewhere, not data on THE
record.) If I query an RDS and get the data and keep a copy for
myself, then my copy fits the proposed definition. But can anyone
rely on my copy? How can I prove it's correct and matches what was
in the registry at a given time? If the registrar and the registry
disagree about a registration date, can I use my copy to solve that
disagreement? Etc. <br><br>
[Gomes] You are correct that the definition does not require the data to
be in a registry or registrar because there is no way to know how a new
RDS will be implemented until we do much more work. We know what
the EWG recommended but we don't know whether the WG will support that
recommendation or some variation or even something very different.
We will have to get there in the future but we are not close now.<br>
<br>
The definition says "then-current". Current as of
when? Or is "at a specific point in time" better?
<br>
<br>
The definition requires it to be a "data set". A
"data set" is two or more pieces of data, a collection.
So a single field is not a "data set", and single fields such
as Create Date could not be discussed as data of record. But those
pieces of data are often important to people. (For example, say
there's a dispute about a registration date. That's a single field,
not a "data set".) A “data object” is a data set – more
than one piece of data. This is another reason why using the
term "object" is problematic.<br><br>
[Gomes] Forgive me for regressing to my mathematics background but in set
theory a set may contain only one element; in fact it is even possible to
have a null set. I can't speak to what may or may not be acceptable
in technological applications of set theory.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
--Greg<br>
<br>
**********************************<br>
Greg Aaron<br>
Vice-President, Product Management<br>
iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com<br>
mobile: +1.215.858.2257<br>
**********************************<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd> <br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>