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

Thu Jun 8 17:17:59 UTC 2017

Fair enough Paul, that one is a tough slog too....

Stephanie

On 2017-06-08 13:12, Paul Keating wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Reading is always good.
>
> At present, I just don’t 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 
> <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, June 8, 2017 at 7:04 PM
> To: Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com 
> <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>, "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)]
>
>     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 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>     _______________________________________________ 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/20170608/7da91456/attachment-0001.html>