[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Some reg'n data I think necessary (was Re: GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group teleconference)

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

First, when you send to the list could you please use
multipart/alternative?  (Your mailer probably has some setting about
"HTML-only" vs "plain text alternative".  You can send both.)  I don't
use an HTML-rendering mail reader.  Thanks.

More substantively,

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:22:13PM -0400, Sam Lanfranco wrote:

>     My brain may still be fuzzy from travel but it seems that dozens of
>     other online services routinely allow one to contact a party without
>     the party's name being published.

I would also be content if this WG could talk only about what's
published in the RDS, and under what terms.  Unfortunately, the
charter also asks us to talk about what data is collected.  Your
example cases like dating services, it's true, do not publish the
names; but the services most certainly _collect_ that data.  (If they
didn't, Ashley Madison's data breach wouldn't have been a big deal.)

>     Ability to reach an owner, and
>     ability to know who the owner is, are two different abilities.

I agree with this.

>     If an
>     owner refused to disclose or respond, that is their right.

Under some circumstances, I agree with this too.  I suspect that this
is an example where differential data access would be a big help.

>     If they
>     are being abusive with the domain name, then the registrar is
>     involved.

This isn't always true.  For instance, mail abuse frequently does not
involve the registrar.  And registrars have limitations on what they
can do depending on local contract law and so on, as well.
Regardless, the above argument isn't one for the premise that the data
shouldn't be collected.  Just that it shouldn't be published for
anonymous access on the Internet.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com