[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposal contactability

[Volker Greimann]

Hi James,

starting the discussion was my main intent, as we were losing ourselves 
in potentialities and small-small...

> Thanks to Volker for getting this conversation started.  I also share 
> the belief that we should define a system that assures reporters their 
> claims will be relayed by P/P services.  However, I disagree on some 
> key points raised by Volker and others.
No worries ;-)
>
> First, I do not believe there should be any attempt to filter 
> submitted reports based on content.  That approach does not scale, and 
> simply results in an arms race where would-be spammers attempt to 
> circumvent the filters.  Also, I do not believe P/P services should 
> relay —all—reports.  This treats the P/P email point of contact as an 
> email “alias” for the beneficial user’s real address, and completely 
> defeats the purpose of the service (most of our P/P customers engage 
> the service to avoid being spammed).
I agree in as much as there should not be a requirement to attempt to 
filter by content, however it should be an option for a value-added 
service. So for example while a basic service might forward everything 
but obvious spam, a premium service might screen all communications. I 
would suggest that content filtering should be an allowed option, but 
not an obligation.
> I favor an approach that is modeled after ICANN’s Invalid WHOIS 
> Reporting System, and one that many Registrars have implemented to 
> guard against WHOIS harvesting – an access whitelist.  Speaking 
> generally, such a system would require reporters to identify 
> themselves when submitting a claim for relay.  Is reporter should also 
> have to designate the email address from which relay claims will 
> originate, and the service provider agrees to honor relay request from 
> that Address without discriminating on its content.  The P/P service 
> provider can then monitor the use of the relay system by each 
> reporter, and suspend or terminate access for any reporter that is 
> found to be abusing the system.
I like this, although this would require that all services cooperate in 
maintaining such a list or would have to relegate this to a third party 
such as ICANN.
> If this sounds familiar, it is blatantly copied from the EWG's 
> proposed RDS concept. I think this idea has merit, and regardless of 
> what happens to the rest of the EWG's recommendations, we should 
> consider opportunities to implement this proposal in existing contexts.
In many ways, RDS as proposed would make privacy services less needed 
anyway as data could be hidden as a basic setting.

Best,

Volker

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140818/aacad3fd/attachment.html>