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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Jun 11 01:30:28 UTC 2017 

Just a reminder that what we pick now is not 
necessarily cast in stone. In any final policy, 
the terminology may change (and it often does), 
so we just need a term here that will no be 
misunderstood as we proceed with the PDP.

Alan

At 10/06/2017 06:44 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

>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 
><<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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 
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com>; 
>RDS PDP WG <<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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 
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>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 <<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com>
>Cc: <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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
><http://www.riskiq.co.il>Website
>RiskIQ Technologies Ltd. (wholly-owned by RiskIQ, Inc.)
>
>
>
>On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck 
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>We have not Jonathan.
>
>
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>From: 
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>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: <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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 
><<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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 
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com>; 
><mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca; 
><mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com; 
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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 
> <<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com>; 
> <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com;
> ><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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://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_t 
> hick_lookups>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: 
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>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: <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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
> > ><mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > ><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > ><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> ><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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
><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:oCW2payf+7G1xyLLxB/CD8UHEMCtD3ZhKYee3s/Wl/mrBjDXYRL0wQjaLSbdcvNqgNgYOq0C3SyrwL86hSVjNzEFckmBqsawQ6t95BAM5c3gmr6cAOFKL4WrzdVSWcZTWOGmDgRrA1MAHoJX1Tw/nQ==
>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
> 
>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000100)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001128)(400125100095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20170610/7a5adf2a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list