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

Tue Jun 6 17:40:44 UTC 2017

re: Volker's post:

>> Granted, however if there is a way to limit the access of evildoers
while still allowing those without ill intent reasonable access, should we
not explore such a way preferentially? The more we can shift the balance
away from abusive potential and towards positive use, the better.

Yes, and (not naming names without their permission), one of the people
joined to this list actually took part in the takedown of one of the gangs
that was abusing whois data to spam people with fake renewal notices. There
are ways to combat this that don't involve shutting whois down. We know how
to deal with this and if youall have info to contribute about ongoing
operations of this sort, we will take them down.

Benny's post:

>>So if I understand you right you pay registrars today to get these data?

Right now, no. But without speaking for anyone else, I am okay with a
portion of what I pay going to the registrars that keep these whois servers
alive. I think it's fair. I strongly suspect that most of your WHOIS
traffic is due to bulk queriers. If such an arrangement was possible, it
could also reduce the number of "repeat" queries made by queriers checking
for changes in records- perhaps record changes could be a "push"
arrangement. This could be done without closing off access to individuals
who want to make "one-off" queries, but drastically reduce the costs faced
by serving bulk queries.

It could also have the side-effect of making abusive use of whois more
apparent and easy to track down. People in our line of work do not take
kindly to that sort of activity and if this is actually a major concern for
youall, we can work together on this.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:18 PM, benny at nordreg.se <benny at nordreg.se> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On 6 Jun 2017, at 19:10, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>Sure I understand free and unlimited access are nice to have…
> >
> > Most of us actually pay significant amounts of money for access to the
> data in bulk. I don't know if the registrars would be interested in
> something like that to help offset their costs of running whois servers.
>
> So if I understand you right you pay registrars today to get these data?
>
>
> >
> > >>Not a part of my comment and dont belong here when you reply to my
> post…
> >
> > by the time i get to my email, a number of mails have gone by. i'll more
> clearly mark them as separate posts next time.
> >
> > >>Just answer me on this why should they be allowed a non contractual
> use of the data, and not all Security are white hats which only do good
> >
> > Data can be used for good and evil. I am sure the data is being used for
> some sort of evil. Just because someone has devised a malicious use for
> something doesn't mean that it should be shut down for everyone. There's a
> balance of benefits and harms here, and right now the benefits outweigh the
> harms by far. Any analysis of the total harms caused by whois, versus the
> harms prevented using whois will be far in favor of the latter.
> >
>
> Then why should it be a drawback  to have a contractual agreement for
> access and how it can and should be used? Wouldn’t that be a benefit for
> all parts about rights for data even for the registrant?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:01 PM, benny at nordreg.se <benny at nordreg.se>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 6 Jun 2017, at 18:51, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>You state that Public whois are important so people can check if
> there personal info are used for registration of domains, but can’t the
> same public data be the source for the data being abused for registrations?
> > >
> > > You are inventing an imaginary edge case as a rebuttal to evidence
> based observations that we have made in the course of our work.
> >
> > Well I see different, where data in whois combined with other sources
> are used for different kind of scams.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>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.
> > >
> > > The status quo is actually really good. We can do our work without
> viewing people's ACTUAL private data, like their billing info or personal
> internet traffic from their ISP. And we can do our work without any
> government coercion to force people to disclose anything. I don't see why
> there is such a desire to disrupt this balance. It is only downhill from
> here.
> >
> > Sure I understand free and unlimited access are nice to have…
> >
> > >
> > > >>What business is it of ours how a registrant uses a domain name
> > >
> > > This is the exact same argument used by bullet proof hosters, but the
> cops never buy it. I'm not saying you are, but I'm saying that this
> argument has never been regarded as a valid defense when open and rampant
> abuse is happening among one's customer base.
> >
> >
> > Not a part of my comment and dont belong here when you reply to my post…
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>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.
> > >
> > > You do understand that the security industry is more than willing to
> pay for bulk, unrestricted access to this data, right?
> >
> > Just answer me on this why should they be allowed a non contractual use
> of the data, and not all Security are white hats which only do good
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:59 AM, benny at nordreg.se <benny at nordreg.se>
> wrote:
> > > You state that Public whois are important so people can check if there
> personal info are used for registration of domains, but can’t the same
> public data be the source for the data being abused for registrations?
> > > --
> > > 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 17:53, jonathan matkowsky <
> jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan Matkowsky
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:39 PM, benny at nordreg.se <benny at nordreg.se>
> wrote:
> > > > And you can by that say with a 100 % certainty that those abused
> data was not originating from whois it self?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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 16:54, jonathan matkowsky <
> jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Abusive domains are also seriously problematic from a privacy
> standpoint because apart from fake credentials as Natale mentions below, I
> can't begin to tell you how many cases I've seen in the last several years
> where innocent peoples' identities are compromised and then used in the
> Whois as part of the abuse. Without access to the public Whois, they never
> would have known their identity had been stolen. Access to Whois for
> abusive domains actually serves to protect privacy interests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan Matkowsky
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:58 PM, 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > _________________________________
> > > Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________________
> > Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>
>

-- 
_________________________________
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170606/a7732419/attachment-0001.html>