[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]

[allison nixon]

Industry trust groups share far more sensitive data and have a far better
vetting process than any "accreditation scheme" that would ever be run by
icann. It's also run by people that care about more than simply maximizing
profits and minimizing costs. Its impossible to create that via legislation
alone and especially impossible to create it within the same ICANN who
still accredits Alpnames even to this day.

While the denials come fast and furious, it is worth noting the logical
inconsistancies that have cropped up.

-registrars complain about spam, but they so far haven't named a single
criminal gang that spams. But they harp over and over about domaintools,
who do not contribute to spam.
-there are also the ridiculous arguments that the creation dates etc in
whois can possibly be abused, no evidence is provided.
-there are also the "legal" arguments where people are saying making any
data public is illegal now, but if this is true, can we look forward to a
total social media shutdown too? No one can reconcile that simple logical
inconsistency.
-apparently those meetings with the much-adored privacy commisioner did not
include any voices from those who worked in security.
-we also have registrars attempting to "mansplain" spam and abuse to people
who work IN antispam and antiabuse
-we have people complain about lack of privacy in whois when it's already
been proven that private people have many options to choose from

So these logical inconsistencies raise serious questions. Personally, i am
not so quick to accuse people of criminal motivations. After all, i did
check the numbers to see if any of the registrars participating here have a
disproportionate number of abusive customers. Thanks to the existence of
public whois, i did not observe anything indicating that.

Still, the logical inconsistencies raise many questions. Personally, my
theory is that the registrars dont want to spend money on running whois
servers. And they are bitter that aggregators make money from it when they
don't. That type of argument is logically consistent and is something i can
actually work with.

If that's the real motivation, we could drop the privacy charade and talk
brass tacks here. A good number of people in this group work at companies
that pay good money for good access to whois in bulk- not private data,
just unfettered bulk access with none of the proxy server games.

I know youall are here to represent your company's interests, and this is a
serious fact worth considering. I know that some similar monetization
schemes already, and if you dont see the opportunity then your registrar is
probably missing out. The registrars that do this not only make extra
money, but the data is used to do anti-abuse work for them for free so they
can keep their customer base clean without hiring anyone extra.

Also, within the context of commercial contracts, you gain actual leverage
and the ability to do due-dilligence on who you are dealing with. Which is
basically what you were asking for benny.







On Jun 8, 2017 4:56 AM, "Stephanie Perrin" <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

Calling me naive, ill informed etc.  does not actually answer the question
folks.  It is, I am afraid, a valid question.  What criteria does an
organization like APWG apply, when it admits members and shares data with
them?  How do you ensure you are not sharing data with organizations who
are going to misuse it?  that data of course is much more that what we are
talking about with thin data, but I did actually work on this issue on
successive versions of the anti-spam legislation.  Oddly enough, government
lawyers examining the issue (mostly from the competition bureau who deal
with criminal matters) never labelled me "naive".

Folks, can we please try to be polite to one another on this list?  When I
have questions like this, I often check with experts before I ask.  They
don't call me naive, they answer my questions.

Thanks again.

Stephanie

On 2017-06-08 01:54, Neil Schwartzman wrote:

My experience differs slightly. They aren’t ignored. The presence of these
.TLDs is a strong indicator of abuse which bears further investigation.

To the point at hand: I believe the notion of certifying private cybercrime
investigators to be painfully naive (do I ignore reports from someone
without a Internet Investigator License? Do we disallow them access to
data?), impractical in the developed world, and deeply chauvinistic,
patronizing and exclusionary to our colleagues in emerging nations where
capacity building is exactly what’s needed to deal with next-gen abuse.


On Jun 8, 2017, at 2:36 AM, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com> wrote:

We're getting there. Entire top level domains are already ignored on many
networks like .science, .xyz, .pw, .top, .club, et cetera




_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing
listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170608/75856f24/attachment-0001.html>