[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Fri Jun 9 12:52:12 UTC 2017
We have not Jonathan.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of jonathan matkowsky
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 7:20 AM
To: 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)]
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<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
Thanks Lisa.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Phifer [mailto:lisa at corecom.com<mailto:lisa at corecom.com>]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 8:27 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>; alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>]
>Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:09 PM
>To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>; ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>;
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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>
> >[mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20170609/079859b1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list