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

[David Cake]

It is certainly my strong intention that security and stability and trust issues are addressed thoroughly. 
However, I think many of those issues are going to be hard to address properly in Phase 1, which deals with fundamental requirements. We can, of course, specify that security and stability and resiliency etc are among the fundamental requirements (and please, if you feel there are additional specific requirements there do bring them up). But for the most part, it is hard to fully address those issues until we have answered some fairly basic design questions (e.g. centralised or federated, cached or uncached, etc) that we will not discuss until phase 2. 

I also agree that whatever we produce will not be perfect. But I think if we carefully articulate the principles we have been working on and the architecture behind it, and create an architecture that allows for more flexibility in its operation than whois, then a new RDS may be far more amenable to useful ongoing analysis and incremental improvement than whois. With careful design, we may be able to produce a system that is not just less broken than whois, but also easier to fix by future policy processes. 
(even just the switch to RDAP goes a long way in this direction for some classes of problem) 

David


> On 22 Mar 2017, at 12:26 pm, Chen, Tim <tim at domaintools.com> wrote:
> 
> +1
> whois is imperfect, like any system.  like RDS will be if it comes to pass.  RDS will just be imperfect in a different way.  i don't agree with some of the rhetoric here on Whois being totally useless or horribly broken.  but that ship may have sailed.  we'll need to understand and consider the unintended consequences of any new system, in our design process.  as a member of the Business Constituency,  there are RDS-related issues related to security and stability and trust in the DNS, issues built into the Mission of ICANN, that are important to me and to other members of the BC, that are beyond the privacy issues that in my initial read seem to dominate the conversation of this working group.  I look forward to bringing those to bear as I have the time and attention to do so.  
> 
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:15 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
> I think gating or stopping whois won't impede criminals one iota. It will impede researchers, defenders and those who try to make the internet safe and will be rife with unintended consequences.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 20:03, Rob Golding <rob.golding at astutium.com <mailto:rob.golding at astutium.com>> wrote:
> 
> >> If access to whois is going to be closed off from the general public,
> >> there isn't going to be any point in charging money for whois privacy
> >> anyways.
> >
> > You think spammers and scammers wont find a way to get access to the data and illegally share it just because it becomes gated ?
> >
> > Rob
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <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/20170323/4d97a01e/attachment.html>