[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Topics etc Re: List topics for this week

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight]

All

As per the emails from Chuck we are working on a specific set of questions / topics each week 

Allison’s request to table this discussion has been noted by Chuck and will be addressed

I’d ask you all to please respect this and put this to one side until the appropriate time.

Regards

Michele, in my capacity is vice-chair 

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ 
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

On 15/06/2017, 12:40, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Rob Golding" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of rob.golding at astutium.com> wrote:

    Hi
    
    > There's a huge difference between domains and telephone numbers
    
    The type of directory is irrelevant to my rights to control my data
    
    > I don't think an article dated from 2000 brings relevant points.
    
    That we've still not brought policy or technology upto almost 20 year 
    old legislation just shows how unfit for purpose WHOIS has become
    
    Much of that is because enforcement of existing legislation has been 
    lax, but the Snowden issue, repealling on the Data Retention Directive, 
    scrapping of Safe-Harbour and a need to toughen up both the rules and 
    the enforcement are what's led to the GDPR, which is now in force, and 
    next year will be actively enforced.
    
    Multi-million $ fines rather than slap-on-wrists with 20k fines might 
    start to change attitudes a bit as the penalties have been inflation 
    adjusted, and now the data-subject is also entitled to compensation for 
    the unauthorised use of their data - so there will be an "incentive" to 
    start sueing people
    
    The local supermarket will pay me £44 (appx $60) for my postal address [ 
    in vouchers, discounts, freebies etc ] - that 's the "value" of my data 
    to one user - if there was suitable recompense to registrants & 
    registrars & registries for access to whois data , I'm sure there would 
    be less objection to the system !
    
    
    
    > -Social norms regarding handling spam have drastically shifted in the
    > past decades
    
    Spam is just one of the numerous (ab)uses of the data. I imagine very 
    few people have "consented" to spam, even if it was listed as a 
    "proposed legitimate use" for which they could actively consent.
    
    > If you don't choose to disclose
    > your information in whois, then no one has a right to it
    
    Whether I choose to be listed in a directory (which I dont _really_ have 
    much choice over as a registrant of numerous gtlds) or not doesn't 
    change that it's *MY* data, nor that most of the (tld dependant) 
    "privacy" options now available are relatively new (whois has been there 
    for 30 years)
    
    > If you do
    > disclose, knowing full well that whois is public, you shouldn't be
    > surprised at the results.
    
    And therein lies what I think is the mindset problem, the "results" are 
    (legally) ONLY what I give explicit permission for it to be used for, 
    any other use is not permitted, and I have the right to revoke that 
    permission, free of charge (to me) at any stage.
    
    > The entitlements you listed(control over sharing, how data is used), on 
    > the Internet in
    > 2017, are wholly unenforceable for anything publicly available.
    
    Google pay thousands of times as much as ICANN to lawyers and yet they 
    lost over the "right to be forgotten" issue under the older and much 
    laxer legislation - so we'll see what is "enforceable"
    
    > If we want to talk about ways to prevent abuse of whois data, first of
    > all, the "reverse lookup" and "historical" directories in their
    > current state are unlikely to be involved in abuse at all-
    
    The directories themselves would constitute an "abuse" - in the main 
    they've breached both law and contract to obtain that data
    
    Maybe we need a definition of what "public" means ?
    Rob
    _______________________________________________
    gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
    gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg