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

Fri Jun 9 13:59:51 UTC 2017

Got it, thanks. It seems to be the same concern Greg was raising.

I would like to propose that we use the term "Thin" and "Thick" only as
adjective to describe a registrar or registry. When a registry operator has
the authoritative (or whatever term the majority decided we should now use
instead in the context of the RDS) information for the domain, they are
generally thought of as a Think registry, and where the registrars have
that information, the registry is usually thought of as a "Thin" registry
operator because their data set is more limited.

Within the context of an RDS, the term "Thin" data is that part of the data
set that is typically held by Thin registry operators. And we have been
talking about whether that part of the data set should be ungated and part
of the minimum public data set. Most concluded it should be. Now we
probably should go on to discuss what aspects of the data set that are
typically held by the registrars Thin registry operators should also be
included in the minimum public data set.

Let me know what you think of this framework. Thanks.

Regards,
Jonathan

Jonathan Matkowsky,
VP – IP & Brand Security
USA:: 1.347.467.1193 | Office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766
Emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831
Company Reg. No. 514805332
11/1 Nachal Chever, Modiin Israel
Website <http://www.riskiq.co.il>
RiskIQ Technologies Ltd. (wholly-owned by RiskIQ, Inc.)

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> 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> 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/bbcb857a/attachment-0001.html>