[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Suggestion re. RDS Accuracy Discussion

[Stephanie Perrin]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is it not true that in the case of 
malfeasant actors, a recent update may not be a sign of greater accuracy?

Stephanie


On 2016-10-11 03:36, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> [ Apologies I am way behind on this discussion, but your mail stuck
>    out. Hopefully I am not repeating an earlier topic. ]
>
> At 2016-10-11 03:07:03 +0000
> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion as chair, I think the discussion about accuracy on our
>> list since our last meeting has been very good but I believe it will
>> become more relevant in our possible requirements deliberations
>> later.  When we get there, we will resume the discussion and we will
>> look at several key documents on accuracy.  For now and in particular
>> for our meeting tomorrow I ask everyone to direct their thinking to
>> how best to word the statement of purpose.  Is reasonable accuracy a
>> purpose of registration directory services?  Or is reasonable
>> accuracy a requirement of RDS?
> Perhaps the focus should be on transparency here? That is, perhaps the
> actual requirement on our work is to provide a way that RDS users can
> know what expectations they can have?
>
> For example, if I could know that the contact details for a domain
> operator has been updated in the past year, then there is a good chance
> that it is accurate. If it has not been updated in 7 years, then there
> is a good chance that it is less useful.
>
> Even stronger forms of trust can be published, perhaps along the lines
> of the differences in X.509 certificates. So, having someone review
> government-issued identification, confirm company registrations, and
> make a phone call or two provides a certain amount of trustworthiness in
> the information. In a browser, you get a magic color. The equivalent
> can of course be done for RDS.
>
> I do not think that we should propose any specific metrics, just
> support the idea of having and publishing metrics.
>
> Such an approach not only has the benefit of improving the data for the
> user, but it also gives flexibility in directory requirements (possibly
> including ccTLD who want to use it but may have different requirements
> than gTLD). It also means that some other poor working group has to
> sort that mess out, leaving us to worry about happier topics. ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161011/f1911c63/attachment.html>