<html>
<body>
Just a reminder that what we pick now is not necessarily cast in stone.
In any final policy, the terminology may change (and it often does), so
we just need a term here that will no be misunderstood as we proceed with
the PDP.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 10/06/2017 06:44 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thanks, Chuck. I think the
suggestion that "public data set" could be used as a
replacement term for the set of fields called "thin data"
resulted in a misimpression that we were deciding or assuming that the
thin data set was the public data set.<br><br>
Greg<br><br>
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 3:23 PM Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
<<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>Johanthan,<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>We are not trying to define the minimum public data set. We
won’t know what that is until further down the road. We are
simply trying to define what we mean when we say ‘thin data’ in the
tentative conclusions we have reached using that term.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Chuck<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd><a name="m_-190702291623728724__MailEndCompose"></a> <br><br>
<dd>From:</b> jonathan matkowsky
[<a href="mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 10, 2017 10:18 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>; RDS
PDP WG
<<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br><br>
<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was
Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>When I did the poll, I didn't think we were trying to define the
minimum public data set, but only that part of it that is typically held
by Thin registry operators. I wanted to get some clarity over what the
poll was intended to cover in light of the confusion over what thin data
is in relation to the minimum public data set.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 at 2:01 Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>Jonathan,<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>I am not sure what you mean as a framework.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Chuck<br><br>
<dd><a name="m_-190702291623728724_m_969513825161733247__MailEndCompose">
</a> <br><br>
<dd>From:</b> jonathan matkowsky
[<a href="mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Friday, June 09, 2017 10:00 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br>
<dd>Cc:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br><br>
<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was
Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Got it, thanks. It seems to be the same concern Greg was
raising. <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>I would like to propose that we use the term "Thin" and
"Thick" only as adjective to describe a registrar or registry.
When a registry operator has the authoritative (or whatever term the
majority decided we should now use instead in the context of the RDS)
information for the domain, they are generally thought of as a Think
registry, and where the registrars have that information, the registry is
usually thought of as a "Thin" registry operator because their
data set is more limited. <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Within the context of an RDS, the term "Thin" data is that
part of the data set that is typically held by Thin registry operators.
And we have been talking about whether that part of the data set should
be ungated and part of the minimum public data set. Most concluded it
should be. Now we probably should go on to discuss what aspects of the
data set that are typically held by the registrars Thin registry
operators should also be included in the minimum public data
set.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Let me know what you think of this framework. Thanks.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Regards,<br><br>
<dd>Jonathan <br><br>
<br>
<dd>Jonathan Matkowsky,<br>
<dd>VP – IP & Brand Security<br>
<dd>USA:: 1.347.467.1193 | Office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766<br>
<dd>Emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831<br>
<dd>Company Reg. No. 514805332 <br>
<dd>11/1 Nachal Chever, Modiin Israel<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.riskiq.co.il">Website</a><br>
<dd>RiskIQ Technologies Ltd. (wholly-owned by RiskIQ, Inc.)<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>We have not Jonathan.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Chuck<br><br>
<dd>
<a name="m_-190702291623728724_m_969513825161733247_m_66601003054405324">
</a> <br><br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>jonathan
matkowsky<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Friday, June 09, 2017 7:20 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was
Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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?<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Thanks<br><br>
<dd>Jonathan Matkowsky<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
<<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>Thanks Lisa.<br><br>
<dd>Chuck<br><br>
<dd>-----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>From: Lisa Phifer
[<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:lisa@corecom.com</a>]<br>
<dd>Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 8:27 PM<br>
<dd>To: Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>;
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re:
Why the thin data is necessary)]<br><br>
<dd>The EWG defined a minimum public data set. This group may not like
"minimum" but "public data set" seems less
controversial?<br><br>
<dd>Lisa<br><br>
<dd>At 06:12 PM 6/8/2017, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:<br>
<dd>>Thanks Alan. Does anyone have a suggestion different than
'ungated elements'?<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>Chuck<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>-----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>>From: Alan Greenberg
[<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>]<br>
<dd>>Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:09 PM<br>
<dd>>To: Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>;<br>
<dd>><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was
Re:<br>
<dd>>Why the thin data is necessary)]<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>Chuck, I really think it is bad choice to call the set of
elements that<br>
<dd>>can be accesses without restriction "thin". Thin is an
accepted and<br>
<dd>>understood term in relation to Whois and is the set of data
elements<br>
<dd>>maintained (and displayed) by the .com, net and jobs registries.
It is<br>
<dd>>well documented. See<br>
<dd>
><a href="https://whois.icann.org/en/what-are-thick-and-thin-entries">
https://whois.icann.org/en/what-are-thick-and-thin-entries</a>,<br>
<dd>
><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-27-en" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-27-en</a>
and<br>
<dd>
><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS#Thin_and_thick_lookups">
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS#Thin_and_thick_lookups</a>.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>To use this same term to define a potentially different set of
elements<br>
<dd>>will only lead to confusion. It certainly did for me on this
week's<br>
<dd>>call!<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>No matter what disclaimers we put in any document saying we are
using<br>
<dd>>the term "thin Whois elements" to refer to a different
group than is<br>
<dd>>currently used in the existing thin Whois displays many people
will<br>
<dd>>take it differently.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>Can we please use some other expression: ungated elements;<br>
<dd>>freebee-Whois; or Whifflefarbs. But not one that already has
a<br>
<dd>>different meaning!<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>Alan<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>At 08/06/2017 04:59 PM, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
wrote:<br>
<dd>> >Like much of the discussion over the last 24 hours +, I
think we are<br>
<dd>> >getting ahead of ourselves. If and when we propose gated
access for<br>
<dd>> >any<br>
<dd>> >(thick) data elements, we will consider the EWG
recommendation of<br>
<dd>> >some form of accreditation for those who would be granted
access to<br>
<dd>> >those elements. In the meantime, I suggest that we
focus on the main<br>
<dd>> >topic of the week (and the poll), which is what elements
should be<br>
<dd>> >defined as thin. Contributions to help us reach
conclusion on that<br>
<dd>> >are most welcome and I sincerely thank those of you already
but some<br>
<dd>> >very good comments in that regard.<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >Chuck<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >-----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>> >From:
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>
>[<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew<br>
<dd>> >Sullivan<br>
<dd>> >Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:53 PM<br>
<dd>> >To:
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>> >Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was
Re: Why<br>
<dd>> >the thin data is necessary)]<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >Hi,<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:55:19AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin
wrote:<br>
<dd>> > > These are excellent questions. I would add an
additional one:<br>
<dd>> > > why are private cybercrime investigators not
accredited? How can<br>
<dd>> > > the global public trust them, or perhaps why?<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >The above question implies a deep misunderstanding of the
nature of<br>
<dd>> >the Internet.<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >As Phill Hallam-Baker[1] said once, "On the Internet,
you are so not<br>
<dd>> >in charge for every value of 'you'." The reason
that Internet<br>
<dd>> >private cybercrime investigators are not accredited is the
same<br>
<dd>> >reason that Internet policy people are not accredited,
Internet<br>
<dd>> >technical contributors are not accredited, Internet
e-commerce site<br>
<dd>> >operators are not accredited, and Internet private fans of
dressing<br>
<dd>> >up as furry creatures are not accredited. In a network
of networks,<br>
<dd>> >there is no centre of control because there is _no
centre_. Since<br>
<dd>> >there is no centre of control on the Internet, accreditation
in the<br>
<dd>> >generic sense above is completely meaningless.<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >The way things on the Internet work is _voluntary_
interconnection,<br>
<dd>> >which means that you're a "private cybercrime
investigator" if people<br>
<dd>> >who have real legal authority in real legal jurisdictions
decide to<br>
<dd>> >rely on and work with your investigations. You're an
ISP if people<br>
<dd>> >decide to use your service provisioning to connect to the
Internet.<br>
<dd>> >And so on.<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >The idea that there is anyone in a position to accredit
someone else<br>
<dd>> >for a generic Internet job completely misses the way the
Internet<br>
<dd>> >actually functions. ICANN today can accredit
registrars and<br>
<dd>> >registries (and therefore make policies about RDS) because
people<br>
<dd>> >agree to let ICANN do this, because it's doing it now and
it's hard to change that.<br>
<dd>> >But if ICANN proves to be too useless for the rest of the
Internet<br>
<dd>> >(because, to take an imaginary case, the community around
ICANN<br>
<dd>> >thinks it is Boss of da Internetz and so can make rules that
break<br>
<dd>> >operational reality without any apparent operational
benefit), then<br>
<dd>> >its role in IANA registries will simply be usurped by
others, and<br>
<dd>> >people will ignore the ICANN registrars and registries and
everything<br>
<dd>> >like that. I certainly hope we never get there,
because it would be<br>
<dd>> >really painful and bad for the Internet. But it is
certainly<br>
<dd>> >possible. ICANN has no power independent of the
agreement of<br>
<dd>> >everyone to use the ICANN policies for the IANA<br>
<dd>> > DNS root. Ask MySpace or the authors of Gopher
whether there are<br>
<dd>> >any permanent favourites on the Internet.<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >Best regards,<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >A<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >[1] of all people<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >--<br>
<dd>> >Andrew Sullivan<br>
<dd>>
><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
<dd>> >_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<dd>>
><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
<dd>> >_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<dd>>
><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<dd>><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br><br>
</dl>
<dd> <br><br>
</dl>
<dd> <br><br>
</dl>
<dd>-- <br><br>
<dd>jonathan matkowsky, vp - ip & head of global brand threat
mitigation<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br><br>
</dl>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:oCW2payf+7G1xyLLxB/CD8UHEMCtD3ZhKYee3s/Wl/mrBjDXYRL0wQjaLSbdcvNqgNgYOq0C3SyrwL86hSVjNzEFckmBqsawQ6t95BAM5c3gmr6cAOFKL4WrzdVSWcZTWOGmDgRrA1MAHoJX1Tw/nQ==<br>
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000100)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001128)(400125100095)(400001002128)(400125200095);<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>