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

Thu Jun 8 15:58:36 UTC 2017

Stephanie, the context certainly helps, and I appreciate you taking the
time to explain that. What Chuck said is true that nobody should feel
stifled from mentioning a company in the industry if it is necessary to
advance a policy argument. I agree that is a matter of good judgment and
not everyone will see eye to eye-- that does not mean they are not acting
in good faith.
Perhaps I was being too emotional about it.

Best,
Jonathan

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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 <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>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <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> 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 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
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170608/c3c1688e/attachment-0001.html>