[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For your review - updated RDS Statement of Purpose
Chris Pelling
chris at netearth.net
Thu Oct 6 20:48:35 UTC 2016
Hi Nick,
I would actually concur with Volker. I see your point but, can I ask a question, the data collected cannot be proven to any certainty because we have nothing as the registry/registrar community to "check" it against. Simply checking say the address against a city, against a State, against a postal/zip code then country isnt proving the registrant data is correct, its simply proving that the registrant can open a phone book and pick an address out.
Until tools are created to prove that registrant is actually at address X, accuracy is a rather moot point.
I agree with your point about law enforcement and bad data being a cost to the public purse, but until the governments can get together and work out a solution for the data to be verified there is little anyone can do.
Registrant giving fake address = bad data
Registrant giving correct address of neighbour = bad data
Registrant giving old address where previously lived = bad data - but at least it could be validated against old correct data and cross checked
This list could be endless :
Registrant giving correct data = good, verifiable. Maybe the governments can work out a solution to being able to verify their citizens data.
I would love to find a solution that is workable and commercially viable, the governments and LEA can then use the data with some surety to its worthiness - although this is a totally separate topic, I would like to sit down and discuss it further - the governments getting together and helping this work.
Just a thought.
Kind regards,
Chris
From: "Nick Shorey" <nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk>
To: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, 6 October, 2016 17:38:55
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For your review - updated RDS Statement of Purpose
Interesting comments Volker! I guess it's all about the perspective you view it from I suppose. The impact of bad data on law enforcement investigations can also be waste of valuable time and cost. Except the cost comes out of of the public purse...
Nick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc.
Senior Policy Advisor | Global Internet Governance
Department for Culture, Media & Sport
HM Government | United Kingdom
Email: nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)7710 025 626
Skype: nick.shorey
Twitter: @nickshorey
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
On 6 October 2016 at 17:23, Volker Greimann < vgreimann at key-systems.net > wrote:
Hi Greg,
BQ_BEGIN
Arguments to the contrary tend to look like a Defense of Bad Data. I can't think of any reasons to defend bad data, unless one wants a bad database.
If you want reasons, here are a few:
1) Cost
2) Waste of valuable time
3) Implementation nightmares
4) No actual standard that applies worldwide
5) Legacy data from legacy sources
6) Customer service nightmare
BQ_BEGIN
It's reasonable to strive for perfectly accurate data, but accept that one will never get there. There should be commercially reasonable and proportionate methods to get as close as practically possible.
BQ_END
One can strive for anything, but it may never be achieved, consuming valuable ressources on the way. How many people died trying to reach the south pole, the north pole, the peak of the Matterhorn, before someone made it. While that first one to make is famous now, consider the loss of life and ressources wasted we spent getting there.
BQ_BEGIN
We have not (in this group) discussed data migration, but assuming a Garbage In, Garbage Out approach doesn't seem reasonable. Whether all the data is validated before migration, or just validated as part of a normal validation cycle, it needs be validated.
BQ_END
Existing data in is the only feasible solution if you want a manageable transition process.
As for validation by the road, before designing a process we should define who is going to have to implement it, process it, deal with user complaints, pay for it, etc. What is better data worth to those who have to pay for it? Are those that benefit from better data going to finance it (including all associated costs)? If so, let's talk....
Best,
Volker
BQ_BEGIN
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels at gmail.com > wrote:
BQ_BEGIN
+1.
Not to make too fine a point of it. But the EWG was tasked to re-imagine an RDS. If this PDP is tasked to build on the works of EWG maybe it'd be useful to re-visit certain ideas we now hold as verities.
-Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Holly Raiche < h.raiche at internode.on.net > wrote:
BQ_BEGIN
Folks
Maybe we need to back up a bit and go back to the Charter and what we are supposed to be doing. Let me quote directly from it:
First - background: Quoting the Charter on the Board decision to launch this PDP:
On 26 May, 2015, the ICANN Board passed a resolution adopting that Process Framework and reaffirming its 2012 request for a Board - initiated PD P to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG’s Final Report as an input to, and, if appropriate, as the foundation for a new gTLD policy
Later - what The Charter tasked this Working Group with:
As part of its Phase 1 deliberations, the PDP WG shoul d work to reach consensus recommendations by considering, at a minimum , the following complex and inter - related questions:
Users/Purposes: Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why?
Gated Access: What steps should be taken to control data a ccess for each user/purpose?
Data Accuracy: What steps should be taken to improve data accuracy?
Data Elements: What data should be collected, stored, and disclosed?
Privacy: What steps are needed to protect data and privacy?
Coexistence: What steps should be taken to enable next - generation RDS coexistence with and replacement of the legacy WHOIS system?
Compliance: What steps are needed to enforce these policies?
System Model: What system requirements must be satisfied by any next - generat ion RDS implementation?
Cost: What costs will be incurred and how must they be covered?
Benefits: What benefits will be achieved and how will they be measured?
Risks: What risks do stakeholders face and how will they be reconciled?
So accuracy’s there - along with a lot of other issues. That is not saying that accuracy is not covered in existing requirements on registries/registrars. But it is giving a broader meaning to RDS - i.e., it’s not just about collection, maintenance and access to data; it’s also about safeguards, etc - using the EWG work.
So thanks Rob. It’s a bit premature to rule issues out when they are well and truly on our table.
Holly
On 6 Oct 2016, at 6:37 am, Rod Rasmussen < rrasmussen at infoblox.com > wrote:
BQ_BEGIN
Folks,
Gotta chime in here, since the EWG provided a lot of thinking on this issue. If you haven’t already, please review the EWG report sections on data accuracy and also the concept of data validators and their relationship to the RDS. For example, I would note that a well-provisioned RDS would be able to provide some sort of validation checks against existing data in the use case of trying to prevent impersonation (a form of accuracy) of an existing registrant (a big brand like Facebook for instance). Another concept we found very important in the EWG is the idea of creating a contact data set tied to a contact ID that is portable between registrars and registries. This provides for the purpose-based contacts we talk about at great length in the report. It also is key for addressing some of the fundamental operational issues that lead to inaccurate, out-of-date data at various registrars. If you have a change in your contact information (a new e-mail for instance) and hold multiple roles in conjunction with many domains, you have a real challenge making updates throughout the universe of your domain names. Using a data validator and then acting via the RDS, when you make a change to your contact info, that automatically can be reflected in all domains you are associated with and thus improve accuracy tremendously. Those are just a couple examples of how an RDS can be involved in dealing with accuracy issues and represent many of the concepts you can address once you look beyond the current paradigm of registrar controlled contact information anchored specifically to individual domain names. Accuracy in the “generic” system (including registries, registrars, RDS, validators, some other group we haven’t thought of yet) is definitely in-scope. How that is done can take many forms and could have different roles played by different participants in the entire ecosystem.
Cheers,
Rod
BQ_BEGIN
On Oct 5, 2016, at 10:36 AM, benny at nordreg.se wrote:
But the data accuracy can’t be done in RDS, the accuracy is done on a registrar level when collecting data.
RDS shall under no circumstances alter any information received from registry / registrars and showing any different info than what is collected on that level.
WG can look at what accuracy they want registrars to do yes, but RDS doesn’t do anything.
--
Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen
Benny Samuelsen
Registry Manager - Domainexpert
Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
IANA-ID: 638
Phone: +46.42197080
Direct: +47.32260201
Mobile: +47.40410200
From: < gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org > on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" < met at msk.com >
Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 19:32
To: 'Marika Konings' < marika.konings at icann.org >, Volker Greimann < vgreimann at key-systems.net >, " gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org " < gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org >
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For your review - updated RDS Statement of Purpose
Volker, what is the basis for your assertion that “ data will be presented "as is" in this system, with no
presumption of any prior cleanup work”?
That statement will be true if we ultimately conclude that the current system is adequate and that we do not recommend establishment of a new RDS. However, if we do recommend a new system, then improvements to data accuracy are very much on the table, as the charter provision quoted by Marika indicates.
Steve Metalitz
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For your review - updated RDS Statement of Purpose
Volker, please note that the PDP WG Charter (see https://community.icann.org/x/E4xlAw ) includes the following question:
As part of its Phase 1 deliberations, the PDP WG should work to reach consensus recommendations by considering, at a minimum , the following complex and inter-related questions:
(…..)
· Data Accuracy: What steps should be taken to improve data accuracy?
(……)
Best regards,
Marika
On 05/10/16 05:58, " gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann " < gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of vgreimann at key-systems.net > wrote:
I would move to strike all references to data quality altogether from
this document, e.g. "current", "accurate" etc.
These are already required by existing policies and agreements and do
not have to be referenced again at this point. We should focus on having
to reflect the data as provided by the RNH at this stage, not make any
presumptions about its quality.
After all, data will be presented "as is" in this system, with no
presumption of any prior cleanup work.
Best,
Volker
>> THE purpose of the "Registration Data Service" (hereafter referred to
>> as
>> "RDS") is to manage authorised parties' access to information about
>> [gTLD Domain Names, gTLD Nameservers, gTLD Registries and gTLD
>> Registrars]
>>
>> Purpose 3(a/b) are possible use cases, not Purposes as such
>>
>> "Accurate" is definitely not a term to use if we ever expect to finish
>> - "Current" would be more accurate (sic) / appropriate.
> Agreed, with one minor suggestion:
>
> "access to information about generic top-level domain registries, registrars, names, and name servers."
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
BQ_END
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
BQ_END
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
BQ_END
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
BQ_END
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
BQ_END
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
BQ_END
_______________________________________________
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/20161006/5df16602/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list