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

Thu Jun 8 15:21:57 UTC 2017

I certainly apologize if I offended anyone from APWG here, but I 
consulted Peter Cassidy prior to posting my message, and he is as 
mystified as I am about what could have offended people here.  And If I 
am misrepresenting Peter, I am sure I will hear from him shortly since 
he is an observer on this group and since we have been pals for a very 
long time, (read over 20 years so who's counting), he will surely let me 
know right away!

I happen to think the APWG is a great organization, that is why I 
volunteer to help out with the Stop-think-connect program, something I 
think deserves all the support it can get.

Cheers Stephanie

On 2017-06-08 11:16, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Jonathan makes some useful suggestions here.  We certainly should not 
> single out companies or organizations in a derogatory manner, but that 
> should not prevent us from asking questions about specific companies 
> or organizations if those questions are not critical of them and are 
> designed to help our understanding.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *jonathan 
> matkowsky
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 5:38 AM
> *To:* Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: 
> Why the thin data is necessary)]
>
> I am not sure if calling a position you are advocating for naive is 
> the same as calling you naive, but it isn't helpful for sure.  We need 
> to all listen to each other when considering policy, and acknowledge 
> the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points 
> of view.
>
> *We also need to try and build consensus*. We all have an obligation 
> to ensure that policy development and decision-making processes will 
> reflect *the public interest*, irrespective of personal interests and 
> the interests of the entity to which we as individuals might owe our 
> appointment.
>
>
> We all owe each other to behave in a professional manner and 
> demonstrate *appropriate behavior*.
>
>  This includes acting in *good faith* with other participants.  I 
> want to say that
>
> while I am certain it was not intended, that
>
>  people
>
> will
>
>  react emotionally when you single out APWG without
>
>  necessarily
>
> having any
>
> real need to
>
>  do so
>
>  for purposes of discussion
>
> .
>
>  I know it upset me.
>
> I think h
>
> ow data is "shared" within APWG, an international coalition unifying 
> the global response to cybercrime across industry, government and 
> law-enforcement sectors and NGO communities
>
> is 
>
> a
>
> different issue than sharing Whois data.
>
>   I would encourage everyone to consider whether singling out a 
> company like has been done with DomainTools or APWG, is
>
> appropriate or like I believe,
>
> *foreseeably derails the consensus building efforts in violation of 
> ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior*.
>
> On a side note, a
>
>  threat researcher or analyst is not the equivalent of an 
> investigator.  So focusing on certifying investigators is irrelevant 
> to any issue within the working group.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jonathan Matkowsky
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 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 <mailto: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/20170608/3299a04b/attachment-0001.html>