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

Sat Jun 10 22:44:14 UTC 2017

Thanks, Chuck.  I think the suggestion that "public data set" could be used
as a replacement term for the set of fields called "thin data" resulted in
a misimpression that we were deciding or assuming that the thin data set
was the public data set.

Greg

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 3:23 PM Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> Johanthan,
>
>
>
> We are not trying to define the minimum public data set.  We won’t know
> what that is until further down the road.  We are simply trying to define
> what we mean when we say ‘thin data’ in the tentative conclusions we have
> reached using that term.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* jonathan matkowsky [mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 10, 2017 10:18 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>; RDS PDP WG <
> 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)]
>
>
>
> When I did the poll, I didn't think we were trying to define the minimum
> public data set, but only that part of it that is typically held by Thin
> registry operators. I wanted to get some clarity over what the poll was
> intended to cover in light of the confusion over what thin data is in
> relation to the minimum public data set.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 at 2:01 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean as a framework.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* jonathan matkowsky [mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 09, 2017 10:00 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* 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)]
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> jonathan matkowsky, vp - ip & head of global brand threat mitigation
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170610/fe4cf55b/attachment-0001.html>