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

[Paul Keating]

Hi Stephanie,

Reading is always good.

At present, I just don¹t want to get bogged down in issues such as gateway
criteria.  That is something that should be dealt with down the road.

From:  <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Date:  Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:04 PM
To:  Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>,
"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)]

>     
>  
> 
> Thanks Michele, I was actually trying to point to it as an example of good
> practice.  I discussed the whole accreditation idea with Peter C, particularly
> in the context of work that is going on at the
> https://www.globalcyberalliance.org/index.html#contact.  I realize some folks
> don't like the idea, indeed it would be perhaps more accurate to say that
> apparently the whole idea is anathema to them, but anybody who has read the UN
> Cybercrime report might possibly think we need to improve standards somehow.
> I assume there is no quarrel here as to whether that 2013 report is worth
> reading....
>  
> 
> cheers Steph
>  
>  
>  
> On 2017-06-08 12:05, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>  
>  
>>       
>>  
>> 
>> Stephanie
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> The APWG¹s 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 don¹t think it¹s particularly offensive to ask how an organisation decides
>> who should get access to data. If you don¹t ask I¹ve 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>
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>  on behalf of Stephanie Perrin
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>  Date: Thursday 8 June 2017 at 09:56
>>  To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <mailto: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 aren¹t 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 what¹s 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/c67d05cf/attachment.html>