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

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight]

Stephanie

The APWG’s membership page provides some details on who can join and some of the criteria that they apply to the membership process:

http://apwg.org/membership/membership/

There are several APWG members on this list who might be able to speak to data access.

I don’t think it’s particularly offensive to ask how an organisation decides who should get access to data. If you don’t ask I’ve no idea how you are meant to learn.

Regards

Michele


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Date: Thursday 8 June 2017 at 09:56
To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170608/7b266c57/attachment-0001.html>