[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Purpose in accordance with Registry Agreement section 2.18

Tue Jun 6 16:45:01 UTC 2017

Well Registrars and Registries have contractual obligations on how data shall be handled and I don’t see why anti abuse and others handling those data elements shall be allowed to freely use these data in a non controlled manner were there are no contractual obligations. 

I would say that is fair for all parts in this and therefore we need a new system which balance this. I am recognising your need for data for the work you do, but am not accepting that equals free use/abuse from the whole world as it is per today. 

There must be a way we can do this in an effective and maybe even better way than what we have today.

--
Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen

Benny Samuelsen
Registry Manager - Domainexpert

Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
IANA-ID: 638
Phone: +46.42197000
Direct: +47.32260201
Mobile: +47.40410200

> On 6 Jun 2017, at 18:33, gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org wrote:
> 
> You mean like whois privacy for free?  We have been giving out ideas
> (and not just that one), I'm not sure why that is not being recognized.
> 
> We have also been pointing out the very real harms your proposed path
> will cause, I'm not sure why those aren't being recognized (instead of
> ignored) so we can create a balanced approach.
> 
> 
> On 06/06/2017 09:40 AM, benny at nordreg.se wrote:
>> Anti Abuse are important no one disagree on that, what I just don’t get are why you and others can’t come up with an idea of how we can make a better solution than today which benefits all sides, instead of fighting for Status Quo.
>> 
>> Feel like a broken record
>> 
>> --
>> 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
>> 
>>> On 6 Jun 2017, at 16:31, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Fully agreed! Anti-abuse is critical to the basic functionality of the Internet. If "basic functionality" is something we should avoid breaking, then anti-abuse is part of that. 
>>> 
>>> We have seen numerous cases where a single attack has global effects far beyond the victim. 
>>> 
>>> The more often this happens, the more likely that laws will be passed that invade privacy. Whois is not a real invasion of privacy because no one is forced to disclose info, and future laws are extremely unlikely to provide people with "options" like whois does now. I would rather avoid entering into a scenario that increases the motivation to pass these laws. We can do a lot with the very minimal amount that is out there right now. 
>>> 
>>> I very much want to encourage the privacy minded people here to think about the long term ramifications rather than just the short term potential victory. Remember my story about Tor.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 6, 2017 9:59 AM, "Natale Maria Bianchi" <nmb at spamhaus.org> wrote:
>>> Besides private and business domains, there is also the large category of
>>> abusive domains - domains registered (or acquired from a previous owner)
>>> for the only purpose of abusing the Internet.  One may perhaps categorize
>>> them as "business", but it does not make much sense to put them together
>>> with domains used legitimately, or worry much about privacy issues -
>>> those are typically registered giving fake credentials, or the
>>> credentials are hidden from the public through an anonymous registration,
>>> and no one will every file a privacy complaint about those.
>>> 
>>> There are operations out there that do this on a massive, industrial scale,
>>> registering hundreds or thousands of domains per day that are going to be
>>> used for a very short time, even a few minutes in the most extreme cases
>>> (hailstorm spammers).  In these cases, literally every second after
>>> registration matters, and whois is therefore a very critical resource for
>>> abuse researchers.  This is why I and others are here.
>>> 
>>> Due to the automated methods used for these registrations and the
>>> consequent correlations between them, it is quite common to be able to
>>> indeed distinguish this category of domains with "sufficient accuracy"
>>> once whois data have been retrieved.
>>> 
>>> So please think in terms of three de facto categories rather than two:
>>> 
>>>        *  legitimate, private
>>>        *  legitimate, business
>>>        *  abusive
>>> 
>>> I am not suggesting that one puts the third category in ICANN
>>> agreements :)  I am merely reminding that looking for abusive domains
>>> is a very important operational aspect of thin and thick whois, and
>>> care should be taken not to throw this other baby away with
>>> the baby water.
>>> 
>>> Natale Maria Bianchi
>>> Spamhaus Project
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>>> If you can differentiate the use that a domain isgoing to be put to
>>>> at the time of registration with sufficient accuracy, you are due
>>>> for an an award ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 02.06.2017 um 22:15 schrieb Dotzero:
>>>>> The overwhelming majority of domains registered would be
>>>>> considered for commercial purposes. The fact that a small
>>>>> percentage of domains are registered by individuals for personal
>>>>> use should not be the determining factor as to what is appropriate
>>>>> for ICANN to do. In fact, many of what people assert are personal
>>>>> domains have advertising on them and would therefor be considered
>>>>> by almost any jurisdiction to be engaged in a commercial activity.
>>>>> This includes many (most?) parked domains.
>>>> [...]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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