[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] a suggestion for "purpose in detail"

[nathalie coupet]

I have a hard time understanding what very stakeholder wants. If every group of stakeholder could write down how they see the new RDS functioning, just by doing a Venn diagram, we could better understand what we have in common and what we need to foncus on to reduce differences of opinion.But that would require more work from already busy people. I think though, it could give us a more tangible view of what we are up against. 
My .02 cents
   Nathalie  

    On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 9:45 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
 

 On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:01:50PM -0500, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
> Except that is not the only approach to the problem nor the ones exclusively used by DP authorities (i.e. Twitter). That is why I asked the question I did and why I will be lobbying them directly for whois privacy for free. 
> 

But I thought the point of what we were doing was to make some
proposals for what to mask and how -- basically, that's what
differential access does.  And I also thought we were at the beginning
of that effort (much as it frustrates me the rate at which we move).

> The question of whether fields are optional or can be "masked" is inherently part of this discussion. 
> 

That's just conflating two different things.  The first thing is to
ask whether something should be collected _at all_.  Then one can ask,
if something is collected, who may obtain it and under what
circumstances.  This latter is the "masking" of which you speak.  And
it's all implemented as it currently is because whois is brain-dead.
So let us not be restricted to the functionality we can get from a
primitive protocol that had already been extended well beyond its
design constraints more than 20 years ago.
 
> To enable third-parties to communicate directly to resolve and troubleshoot problems. 

I suggest that's already there.

> To enable third-parties to report abuse or security incidents so they may be resolved. 

This too.

> To enable users and entities to have information to adjudicate an entity is who they say they are (for instance phishing, scams, fake news). 
> 

I find it impossible to imagine using the whois for this purpose, so
I'd like a use description for this.  Since it's not authenticated or
authenticatable information anyway, as there are no signatures and so
on, it seems a pretty poor way to do it.  This is partly included in
the purposes however when we discuss X.509 certificates.

> ICANN isn't just a business to confer domain names. Its a quasi-regulatory body over a "commons" and a natural monopoly. The purposes must be viewed beyond the prism of the mere registrar-consumer relationship as many interests are relevant and just as important. 
> 

While I strongly agree that the purposes need to be rather wider than
the domain name industry, I'm uncomfortable with both of the claims of
quasi-regulatory authority, the notion of the Internet as a commons.
The root zone is indeed a natural monopoly, though.

Best regards,

A

-- 
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


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170322/233b8617/attachment.html>