[CPWG] Unified Access Model published for community input

[Gordon Chillcott]

Hello, Greg:


I apologize for being so late with my reply here.


I have read Chris' remarks and I do take point on the subject of
“separate authenticating bodies for each type of eligible user group”
and he is right about the possibility of gaming strategies. On the other
hand, it may be difficult to avoid this in some cases. Certain groups
have accreditation/governing bodies that might be used for this purpose
– they have already validated their “community members”.

The challenge here is to examine the gaming possibilities and build
mechanisms to avoid them.


On Chris' concern about data retention: I would recommend that the
intended data retention period be part of the data access request, along
with a statement of purpose that covers the proposed use of the data and
its retention.


On the topic of bulk data access, we need a much sharper definition of
what we mean by this. It certainly cannot be a wholesale download of the
whole, or even part of the database. It might be, for example, a stream
of selected fields across a region that is to be used for statistical
purposes (and with a tightly restricted retention period). This sort of
access needs to be spelled out. Requests by Law Enforcement Agencies
present their own challenges, though.


On some of the questions in Section E (pages 7-8):


     1. I believe that requests for non-public WHOIS data should
        describe its purpose on each request. I really need to see the
        arguments against this.
        
     2. Full WHOIS data should not be returned on a request unless that
        request specifically asks for it and provides a legitimate
        reason.
        
     3. Again, I would need to see the arguments against this one, but I
        feel that the registrant should be allowed to request access to
        the logs of query activities.
        

On question 5 (page 8) the suggestion that fees would be desirable has
been mentioned in discussions I have had, including with members of my
ALS. There was some sympathy for the position some Registrars have
taken; another suggestion was that this might curb “frivolous” requests.


Regards,


Gordon Chillcott
Greater Toronto Area Linux Users Group


On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 00:25 -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> As mentioned on today's CPWG call, ICANN org published a blog earlier
> this week releasing the proposed Unified Access Model for community
> input.  
> 
>  
> 
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/possible-unified-access-model-published-for-community-input
> 
> 
> The proposal itself can be found here: Draft Framework for a Possible
> Unified Access Model for Continued Access to Full WHOIS Data – For
> Discussion 
> 
> 
> I am the penholder on this comment. Please reply to this email if your
> are interested in commenting.  Thanks!
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> -- 
> Greg Shatan
> greg at isoc-ny.org
> 
> 
> "The Internet is for everyone"
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg