<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:small">Have we concluded that outside of however we define Think Whois, no other fields will be part of the minimum public data set? If so, I didn't realize that. As an example, identifying the registrant country should be part of the minimum public data set. But I wouldn't necessarily think it needs to be implemented the same way. Maybe I too was confused over the use of our term 'Thin' as it's generally understood. Can someone help me to understand this?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:small">Thanks</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="m_5869461072168385193gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Jonathan Matkowsky</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks Lisa.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Lisa Phifer [mailto:<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com" target="_blank">lisa@corecom.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 8:27 PM<br>
To: Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>; <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]<br>
<br>
The EWG defined a minimum public data set. This group may not like "minimum" but "public data set" seems less controversial?<br>
<br>
Lisa<br>
<br>
At 06:12 PM 6/8/2017, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:<br>
>Thanks Alan. Does anyone have a suggestion different than 'ungated elements'?<br>
><br>
>Chuck<br>
><br>
>-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.<wbr>ca</a>]<br>
>Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:09 PM<br>
>To: Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>;<br>
><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re:<br>
>Why the thin data is necessary)]<br>
><br>
>Chuck, I really think it is bad choice to call the set of elements that<br>
>can be accesses without restriction "thin". Thin is an accepted and<br>
>understood term in relation to Whois and is the set of data elements<br>
>maintained (and displayed) by the .com, net and jobs registries. It is<br>
>well documented. See<br>
><a href="https://whois.icann.org/en/what-are-thick-and-thin-entries" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://whois.icann.org/en/wh<wbr>at-are-thick-and-thin-entries</a>,<br>
><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-27-en" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resourc<wbr>es/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-<wbr>27-en</a> and<br>
><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS#Thin_and_thick_lookups" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki<wbr>/WHOIS#Thin_and_thick_lookups</a>.<br>
><br>
>To use this same term to define a potentially different set of elements<br>
>will only lead to confusion. It certainly did for me on this week's<br>
>call!<br>
><br>
>No matter what disclaimers we put in any document saying we are using<br>
>the term "thin Whois elements" to refer to a different group than is<br>
>currently used in the existing thin Whois displays many people will<br>
>take it differently.<br>
><br>
>Can we please use some other expression: ungated elements;<br>
>freebee-Whois; or Whifflefarbs. But not one that already has a<br>
>different meaning!<br>
><br>
>Alan<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>At 08/06/2017 04:59 PM, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:<br>
> >Like much of the discussion over the last 24 hours +, I think we are<br>
> >getting ahead of ourselves. If and when we propose gated access for<br>
> >any<br>
> >(thick) data elements, we will consider the EWG recommendation of<br>
> >some form of accreditation for those who would be granted access to<br>
> >those elements. In the meantime, I suggest that we focus on the main<br>
> >topic of the week (and the poll), which is what elements should be<br>
> >defined as thin. Contributions to help us reach conclusion on that<br>
> >are most welcome and I sincerely thank those of you already but some<br>
> >very good comments in that regard.<br>
> ><br>
> >Chuck<br>
> ><br>
> >-----Original Message-----<br>
> >From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a><br>
> >[mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew<br>
> >Sullivan<br>
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:53 PM<br>
> >To: <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> >Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why<br>
> >the thin data is necessary)]<br>
> ><br>
> >Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> >On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:55:19AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin wrote:<br>
> > > These are excellent questions. I would add an additional one:<br>
> > > why are private cybercrime investigators not accredited? How can<br>
> > > the global public trust them, or perhaps why?<br>
> ><br>
> >The above question implies a deep misunderstanding of the nature of<br>
> >the Internet.<br>
> ><br>
> >As Phill Hallam-Baker[1] said once, "On the Internet, you are so not<br>
> >in charge for every value of 'you'." The reason that Internet<br>
> >private cybercrime investigators are not accredited is the same<br>
> >reason that Internet policy people are not accredited, Internet<br>
> >technical contributors are not accredited, Internet e-commerce site<br>
> >operators are not accredited, and Internet private fans of dressing<br>
> >up as furry creatures are not accredited. In a network of networks,<br>
> >there is no centre of control because there is _no centre_. Since<br>
> >there is no centre of control on the Internet, accreditation in the<br>
> >generic sense above is completely meaningless.<br>
> ><br>
> >The way things on the Internet work is _voluntary_ interconnection,<br>
> >which means that you're a "private cybercrime investigator" if people<br>
> >who have real legal authority in real legal jurisdictions decide to<br>
> >rely on and work with your investigations. You're an ISP if people<br>
> >decide to use your service provisioning to connect to the Internet.<br>
> >And so on.<br>
> ><br>
> >The idea that there is anyone in a position to accredit someone else<br>
> >for a generic Internet job completely misses the way the Internet<br>
> >actually functions. ICANN today can accredit registrars and<br>
> >registries (and therefore make policies about RDS) because people<br>
> >agree to let ICANN do this, because it's doing it now and it's hard to change that.<br>
> >But if ICANN proves to be too useless for the rest of the Internet<br>
> >(because, to take an imaginary case, the community around ICANN<br>
> >thinks it is Boss of da Internetz and so can make rules that break<br>
> >operational reality without any apparent operational benefit), then<br>
> >its role in IANA registries will simply be usurped by others, and<br>
> >people will ignore the ICANN registrars and registries and everything<br>
> >like that. I certainly hope we never get there, because it would be<br>
> >really painful and bad for the Internet. But it is certainly<br>
> >possible. ICANN has no power independent of the agreement of<br>
> >everyone to use the ICANN policies for the IANA<br>
> > DNS root. Ask MySpace or the authors of Gopher whether there are<br>
> >any permanent favourites on the Internet.<br>
> ><br>
> >Best regards,<br>
> ><br>
> >A<br>
> ><br>
> >[1] of all people<br>
> ><br>
> >--<br>
> >Andrew Sullivan<br>
> ><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
> >_____________________________<wbr>__________________<br>
> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
> ><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
> >_____________________________<wbr>__________________<br>
> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
> ><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
><br>
>_____________________________<wbr>__________________<br>
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>