[Gnso-epdp-team] Factual studies starting to shoot down the "going dark" panic

[Arasteh]

Cisco published several reports which is nit supported by public.
You may like it but should not be related to redacting nor to the usefulness or otherwise of Whois and is outside the mandate  of this group .
Moreover,any action if and only if necessary to be taken should be based on multiple studies for long terms for which the inputs, assumptions and statistics should be clearly defined and agreed 
Regards
Have a pleasant week- end 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Sep 2018, at 09:56, Theo Geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> The Cisco Talos report is basically in line with my personal experience (for years) as a ccTLD registrar who sells ccTLD's where the registry does not publish personal data in the WHOIS. 
> 
> Theo 
>> On 8/31/2018 7:27 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> This study supports the argument that  WHOIS might not be an essential tool for fighting spam and the world did not see a massive spam apocalypse as it was said it will (it is "a" tool but not essential and most probably replaceable even). Yes it is a short time frame and might not be complete but it is at least based on some data. If there are other studies that provide data that can support the argument that WHOIS is an essential tool for fighting spam (other than all the statements  and individual cases) and as a result of compliance with GDPR and redacted personal data of domain name registrants there is an increase in spam, then we can look into them. 
>> 
>> I would also like to note that domain name hijacking has decreased according to some registrars as a result of redacted personal info in WHOIS (as was said during our call a couple of weeks ago). Domain name hijacking is an issue domain name registrants especially in developing countries had to deal with for long with almost no recourse nor remedy. They did not have the resources and           the knowledge of using UDRP or lodge transfer complaint to get their domain names back.
>> 
>> Privacy in WHOIS might even be good for cybersecurity and protecting trademarks. Why don't we look at it this way too. Not implying that we should not address all other issues that can be raised because of redacted personal information from WHOIS, just saying WHOIS is not that dark because of protection of privacy of domain name registrants.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> Farzaneh
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:59 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> I am not sure that such study was done fir the whole words or based on some limited area .I do not believe that one could take any conclusion on that
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 31 Aug 2018, at 17:12, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Relevant to the work of this group is the following study from Recorded Future.
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.recordedfuture.com/gdpr-spam-impact/?utm_content=76363539&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Entitled “90 Days of GDPR: Minimal Impact on Spam and Domain Registration”
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Dr. Milton Mueller
>>>> 
>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>> 
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> <image001.jpg>
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>>>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20180901/4b78580a/attachment.html>