[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Contractibility, PBC and required contact methods....
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Thu Aug 24 15:41:01 UTC 2017
I know we have different opinions on this but I feel that one method of
contact should be sufficient. I certainly do not want to be contacted on
my phone by anyone that has an issue with a domain that I own. While it
may be a fast method, it is also very, very intrusive and we should
think twice about making that number to anyone but those that the
registrant wants to be in possession of his number.
For address details, these have also become much less relevant. With
digital nomads working from anywhere on the globe, the concept of
reaching them through a mailing address that they would return to maybe
once a year is not realistic. Granted, this is only a small percentile
of registrants, but it exists. Be that as it may, the provision of
address data may also lead to a form of contactibility we should be wary
of: The showing up on one's front lawn. I certainly do not want anyone I
do not care for to turn up at my front door.
And with that, I have not even touched upon the data privacy nightmare
that the collection of this details without actual need for the
provision of the service constitutes.
Best,
Volker
Am 24.08.2017 um 17:28 schrieb Greg Shatan:
> I share and support Alex's concerns here. I think it helps to unpack
> the two issues here and deal with them discretely.
>
> 1. The number of contact methods and whether each is mandatory or
> optional.
> 2. The number of contact types.
>
> On the first point, we are clearly going in a direction that minimizes
> contactibility. This runs counter to foundational agreements in the
> WG, as Alex points out, and counter to the fundamental concept of a
> directory service. At a minimum, the "holy trinity" of email, phone
> and physical address need to be preserved and mandatory. Recognizing
> that contact methods evolve, the ability to handle other methods
> optionally (various messaging, chat, and voice platforms) should be
> included as options, perhaps with the ability to designate "preferred"
> methods.
>
> I am slightly (but only slightly) less concerned about the second
> point. In WHOIS, many times the contact types have the identical
> data. But that is at least an implicit acknowledgement that the
> contact is competent to be designated as that contact type. With the
> additional contact types, it's even more important to emphasize that a
> designated contact has to be able to handle contacts of that type.
> Maybe some registrants are able to handle all types of issues/purposes
> the different contacts address, but that can't be assumed. Therefore,
> it is wrong to simply collapse the different types and treat it as a
> presumption that one contact fits all.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:10 AM Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net
> <mailto:sam at lanfranco.net>> wrote:
>
> I don't know if this helps, but at least it is a short read:
>
> My mind keeps going back to the "form follows function" design
> idea. The six PBCs are distinct contact purposes and not
> necessarily distinct contact persons. In the existing WHOIS the
> three contacts (registrant, admin, tech) were based on the idea
> that issues were either technical or admin, or involved something
> the registrant should be contactable for. The PBS types have added
> Legal, Abuse, and Proxy/Privacy. Legal and Abuse are an
> evolutionary addition based on the development of the Internet
> ecosystem and associated intellectual property and abuse issues. A
> Proxy/Privacy contact follows from specific issues that flow from
> the growth of proxy/privacy services.
>
>
> Without getting into who has access to what, one can envision what
> a user interface might look like, and that might help
> identify/clarify issues here. Assume six purposes (PBCs) and X
> (1,2,?) mandatory and Y (1,2,?) optional contact methods. Any
> contact is for one of the six purposes (PBCs). The registrant
> decides the appropriate options (email, alt-email, IM, SMS, etc.)
> from the acceptable list, for each of the six purposes, to be
> offered by the RDS and selected by the query initiator.
>
> What might this entail for the registrant? Consider a simple forms
> format. With the six possible query destinations, the registrant
> enters a number of mandated/optional contact options, and may
> associate particular contact options with particular query
> purposes. For minimal registrant effort the contact options can be
> entered once, and drop down menus for the six purposes can be used
> to flag certain, some or all contact options as purpose appropriate.
>
>
> What are the WG decision issues here? Tentatively we have the six
> PBCs.
>
>
> * We decide on X mandatory contact options. For each PBC there
> are X possible choices.
> * We decide on Y optional options, so for each PBC there are
> between one and (X+Y) contact choices.
> * We decide on what are acceptable contact option formats.
> * With 6 contact purposes there should be 6 fields for contact
> options.
>
> If the registrant selects only one optional contact for a purpose,
> that is the registrant's preferred contact option. If that fails
> the query user has the mandatory contact options to fall back on.
>
>
> For what it is worth....
>
>
> Sam L.
>
>
>
> On 8/24/2017 8:49 AM, Greg Aaron wrote:
>>
>> Yes – there appears to be inconsistency between the goal of
>> decent contactability and the possible implementation, which
>> might not deliver on that promise.
>>
>> All best,
>>
>> --Greg
>>
>> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Deacon,
>> Alex
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2:56 PM
>> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Contractibility, PBC and required
>> contact methods....
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I’ve been thinking about the discussion we had on this week’s
>> call and the preliminary WG agreements that resulted from those
>> discussions. E.g.
>>
>> *Preliminary WG Agreement:* To improve contactability with the
>> domain name registrant (or authorized agent of the registrant),
>> the RDS must be capable of supporting at least one alternative
>> contact method as an optional field.
>>
>> *Preliminary WG Agreement:* PBC types identified (Admin, Legal,
>> Technical, Abuse, Proxy/Privacy, Business) must be supported by
>> the RDS but optional for registrants to provide
>>
>> While I understand these are preliminary and high-level
>> non-concrete concepts I wanted to point out that the main idea of
>> the these preliminary WG agreements was to “improve
>> contractibility”. My concern is that these agreements do
>> exactly the opposite.
>>
>> In today’s WHOIS we have 3 mandatory contact types (a.k.a. PBC):
>> registrant, admin, tech. Each of those three types mandate at 3
>> contact methods (email, phone and physical mail) and allow for
>> one optional contact method (Fax). i.e. 3*3=9 potential
>> methods to initiate contact with the registrant. (And before you
>> respond I do understand that often these contact types contain
>> the same contact info.) Even when all 3 contact types are
>> the same there exists 3 separate contact methods that increase
>> contactability (1*3=3)
>>
>> Today’s preliminary agreements indicate that we could end up with
>> a single contact type (Registrant) with a single contact method
>> (email address). i.e. 1*1=1
>>
>> This will clearly will decrease contactability – not increase
>> it. I think we have more work to do here….
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email:Lanfran at Yorku.ca <mailto:Lanfran at Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco
> blog:https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
--
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170824/875c7d41/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list