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

[James Galvin]

On 22 Mar 2016, at 10:50, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 09:14:49AM -0400, James Galvin wrote:
>>
>> While it is true that a good portion of the work that is conducted by 
>> the
>> ICANN community is around domain names that are “on the 
>> Internet”, the fact
>> is there is no requirement that a domain name be operational in any 
>> way.
>
> Aha.  I think we're disagreeing about a term, not in substance.

I agree.

Jim


>
> When I say that these are domain names "on the Internet", that
> includes the cases where you don't turn them on.  They're still only
> domain names with respect to the Internet, as opposed to something
> else (like, for instance, trademarks or baby names, which get
> registered elsewhere).
>
> To put this another way, the act of registering a name in a domain
> name registry creates an association between the name and the
> registrant with respect to the Internet, but _not_ necessarily with
> respect to other systems.  By registering anvilwalrusden.com, even if
> I do not add any name servers to that registration, I get the right to
> use (or not use, as I see fit) that name on the Internet.  It does not
> mean that my (non-existent) baby is named "anvilwalrusden.com", or
> that my future automotive and bait shop business sells anvils and
> walrusses, or anything like that.
>
> And this is quite proper, because ICANN's mission is about things on
> the Internet and not about other stuff.  It can pursue activities
> outside the Internet context only in so far as those activities are in
> support of the core mission.  This WG shouldn't investigate outside
> that boundary because if we do, ICANN won't be able to implement the
> recommendations: they'd be outside the ICANN mission.
>
>> It is a fair question for this group to ask whether that is the 
>> degenerative
>> case or that is the baseline case.
>
> Well, I think it's obviously a second case as a matter of history, but
> I think it doesn't matter for our purposes, and would probably just be
> a distraction.
>
>> The operational data you describe is not necessary for domain names 
>> that are
>> not operational.  The operation of a domain name could become one of 
>> many
>> use cases to be considered separately.
>
> Every domain name, by definition, contains the potential to become
> operational on the Internet.  For instance, the data that I listed
> included things like name servers; obviously, if the name does not
> actually have authoritative servers then they can't be provided.  That
> lack of name servers is also operational information, however.  If the
> RDS for a name has no authoritative name servers and yet I can
> retrieve an answer from the DNS, then either there is an illegitimate
> spoof going on or else the name servers in question are lame.
>
>> Today there is a tendency to require the operational data, even for 
>> names
>> that are not operational.
>
> Yes, but today we also have the problem that any class of data that is
> published for anyone must automatically be published for everyone
> because the protocol is stupid.  We have available to us a smarter
> protocol, and so the question of what data is to be collected (in
> absolute terms) can be unhooked from the question of what data is to
> be available and under what circumstances.  We must continue to keep
> that distinction in mind.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg