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

[Greg Shatan]

Sam,

First, I think you are touching on two issues, both if which have their
complexities:


   - Privacy & proxy services (which is largely outside our remit, but
   which was just the subject of a completed PDP), which allow registrants to
   maintain contactability (if the P&P service works appropriately) while not
   revealing their "name"
   - Differentiated access (which is in our remit, as I understand it)

Second, there are more "cases" to be considered than "being abusive with
the domain name" and something "more serious" enough to invoke law
enforcement (which is what I presume you mean by 'the law").  So, yes it's
more complicated than that.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:

> All,
>
> 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 assume (having not used them....yet  :-\ ) that
> the online dating/matchmaking services work that way, as do lots of other
> online services. Ability to reach an owner, and ability to know who the
> owner is, are two different abilities. If an owner refused to disclose or
> respond, that is their right. If they are being abusive with the domain
> name, then the registrar is involved. If it is more serious, then the law
> is involved. Need this part be more complicated than that?
>
> On 20/03/2016 7:39 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> One further point to consider in the context of the informative exchange
> below.
>
>
>
> Whether one likes it or not, whether one wishes it were otherwise or not,
> the fact is that over the past 20+ years, many people have come to rely on
> registration data not only to facilitate the functions Andrew outlines
> below, and not only to support the business operations of the collectors of
> the data (in the gTLD world,  the registrars), which was the thrust of
> Holly’s original post, but for another purpose:  to access a public record
> of who has registered which domain name(s), in order to enable (or at least
> to facilitate) contact with that registrant when issues arise regarding the
> use of the domain name.
>
>
>
> Andrew’s observation that third party access to registration data is
> needed to deal with abuse attributable to particular registrants covers
> part of this purpose, but not all of it. Over the years, and most recently
> in the Expert Working Group, ICANN participants have compiled extensive
> lists of such purposes for which registration data has been used. This
> “public record” characteristic of the only registration data system that
> has ever applied to gTLD registrations is an important factor to bear in
> mind.   It has contributed significantly to transparency in the DNS and
> ultimately to accountability for how domain names are used.  Of course,
> those benefits to the public have also been accompanied by costs to the
> public. Hopefully these can be weighed objectively.
>
>
>
> I fully agree that the fact – and it is a fact -- that gTLD registration
> data has always been a public record does not resolve the question of
> whether the members of the public who have historically relied on access to
> this data should continue to enjoy the same level of access to it that they
> do under the current system.  There may be valid and persuasive reasons for
> reducing or restricting that level of access in the future--- optimally, in
> a way that retains the public benefits of the current system while reducing
> the costs.   But it does suggest that if we move to a system in which the
> collection of this data is restricted to those elements that serve a
> foreseen business purpose for the collectors (registrars), then there may
> be significant costs to the public, which by definition could never, under
> any circumstances or conditions, enjoy access to data that was never
> collected.  This certainly should be a factor in deciding whether the
> public interest is best served by such restrictions on collection.
>
>
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
>
>
> < Rest Deleted >
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160322/a927aa33/attachment.html>