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

[John Bambenek]

Excellent suggestion.  Perhaps a future action item could be a survey of who various classes of stakeholders use RDS/whois. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 21:07, nathalie coupet via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170321/d99919a6/attachment-0001.html>