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

Fri Jun 9 11:20:24 UTC 2017

Have we  concluded that outside of however we define Think Whois, no other
fields will be part of the minimum public data set? If so, I didn't realize
that. As an example, identifying the registrant country should be part of
the minimum public data set. But I wouldn't necessarily think it needs to
be implemented the same way. Maybe I too was confused over the use of our
term 'Thin' as it's generally understood. Can someone help me to understand
this?

Thanks
Jonathan Matkowsky

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> Thanks Lisa.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Phifer [mailto:lisa at corecom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 8:27 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>; alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca;
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com; 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)]
>
> The EWG defined a minimum public data set. This group may not like
> "minimum" but "public data set" seems less controversial?
>
> Lisa
>
> At 06:12 PM 6/8/2017, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
> >Thanks Alan.  Does anyone have a suggestion different than 'ungated
> elements'?
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> >Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:09 PM
> >To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>; ajs at anvilwalrusden.com;
> >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)]
> >
> >Chuck, I really think it is bad choice to call the set of elements that
> >can be accesses without restriction "thin". Thin is an accepted and
> >understood term in relation to Whois and is the set of data elements
> >maintained (and displayed) by the .com, net and jobs registries. It is
> >well documented. See
> >https://whois.icann.org/en/what-are-thick-and-thin-entries,
> >https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-27-en and
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS#Thin_and_thick_lookups.
> >
> >To use this same term to define a potentially different set of elements
> >will only lead to confusion. It certainly did for me on this week's
> >call!
> >
> >No matter what disclaimers we put in any document saying we are using
> >the term "thin Whois elements" to refer to a different group than is
> >currently used in the existing thin Whois displays many people will
> >take it differently.
> >
> >Can we please use some other expression: ungated elements;
> >freebee-Whois; or Whifflefarbs. But not one that already has a
> >different meaning!
> >
> >Alan
> >
> >
> >
> >At 08/06/2017 04:59 PM, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
> > >Like much of the discussion over the last 24 hours +, I think we are
> > >getting ahead of ourselves. If and when we propose gated access for
> > >any
> > >(thick) data elements, we will consider the EWG recommendation of
> > >some form of accreditation for those who would be granted access to
> > >those elements.  In the meantime, I suggest that we focus on the main
> > >topic of the week (and the poll), which is what elements should be
> > >defined as thin.  Contributions to help us reach conclusion on that
> > >are most welcome and I sincerely thank those of you already but some
> > >very good comments in that regard.
> > >
> > >Chuck
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> > >[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
> > >Sullivan
> > >Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:53 PM
> > >To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> > >Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why
> > >the thin data is necessary)]
> > >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:55:19AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> > > > These are excellent questions.  I would add an additional one:
> > > > why are private cybercrime investigators not accredited?  How can
> > > > the global public trust them, or perhaps why?
> > >
> > >The above question implies a deep misunderstanding of the nature of
> > >the Internet.
> > >
> > >As Phill Hallam-Baker[1] said once, "On the Internet, you are so not
> > >in charge for every value of 'you'."  The reason that Internet
> > >private cybercrime investigators are not accredited is the same
> > >reason that Internet policy people are not accredited, Internet
> > >technical contributors are not accredited, Internet e-commerce site
> > >operators are not accredited, and Internet private fans of dressing
> > >up as furry creatures are not accredited.  In a network of networks,
> > >there is no centre of control because there is _no centre_.  Since
> > >there is no centre of control on the Internet, accreditation in the
> > >generic sense above is completely meaningless.
> > >
> > >The way things on the Internet work is _voluntary_ interconnection,
> > >which means that you're a "private cybercrime investigator" if people
> > >who have real legal authority in real legal jurisdictions decide to
> > >rely on and work with your investigations.  You're an ISP if people
> > >decide to use your service provisioning to connect to the Internet.
> > >And so on.
> > >
> > >The idea that there is anyone in a position to accredit someone else
> > >for a generic Internet job completely misses the way the Internet
> > >actually functions.  ICANN today can accredit registrars and
> > >registries (and therefore make policies about RDS) because people
> > >agree to let ICANN do this, because it's doing it now and it's hard to
> change that.
> > >But if ICANN proves to be too useless for the rest of the Internet
> > >(because, to take an imaginary case, the community around ICANN
> > >thinks it is Boss of da Internetz and so can make rules that break
> > >operational reality without any apparent operational benefit), then
> > >its role in IANA registries will simply be usurped by others, and
> > >people will ignore the ICANN registrars and registries and everything
> > >like that.  I certainly hope we never get there, because it would be
> > >really painful and bad for the Internet.  But it is certainly
> > >possible.  ICANN has no power independent of the agreement of
> > >everyone to use the ICANN policies for the IANA
> > >  DNS root.  Ask MySpace or the authors of Gopher whether there are
> > >any permanent favourites on the Internet.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >
> > >A
> > >
> > >[1] of all people
> > >
> > >--
> > >Andrew Sullivan
> > >ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/20170609/165e7f21/attachment-0001.html>