[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] a suggestion for "purpose in detail"
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Thu Mar 23 14:07:29 UTC 2017
Hi Allison,
>
> Several registrars already offer free whois privacy. They made it
> work, so you should keep up!
Most such registrars still charge for the same service, it is just that
the cost is hidden in their more expensive registration fees. Or they do
not handle complaints appropriately. Or, or, or...
Ultimately, someone is going to pay for the service, and it is not the
registrar offering it for "free".
TANSTAAFL.
>
> Maybe dumb bad actors. Savvy bad actors just populate whois with
> data of unknowing third parties, thereby rendering any
> verification and validation instruments useless and
> inconveniencing the affected data subjects as well.
>
>
> I'm glad you know so much about how bad actors abuse whois. But from
> my own limited experiences- I don't see that many input validation
> mechanisms on bad domains because there are a lot of "555-5555" phone
> numbers out there and other arbitrary strings.
I see what comes over my desk. Most domains we find involved in whois
have perfectly formed and verifiable whois. The data just does not match
the person who registered it.
>
>
> Some points/thoughts :
> Cost of providing the service (this includes cost of the office,
> personnel to run it - unless you are going to offer this free
> "John B" to all ICANN registrars ?)
> The underlying data may not even be allowed to be provided to the
> whois privacy service, unless it is in the local jurisdiction of
> the registrant.
> Harvesting and storage of whois data to be re-wrapped and sold is
> illegal and many registrars state this on the terms and conditions.
> Gated access has to be properly defined for each gate/right of
> access, an example, a registrar would normally only need access to
> external whois for the purpose of transferring a domain name -
> they have no other reason to need access to this data.
> (registration, is totally different as it doesnt need access to
> the "whois") As above, storage of whois data is illegal unless it
> was for a lawful purpose and the only one I can think of is
> transfers. ICANN require registrars to keep this info for upto 2
> or 7 years (cant remember which). This will step on some
> registrars toes as well as John H's toes whi have a business model
> around the supply of whois data for commercial gain (namely
> charging for it).
> I am sorry to say that none of what the WG will do or complete
> will stop bad actors, they are smart, they are not dumb (well some
> of them are:) )
>
>
> so who decided that these normal uses of whois are suddenly illegal? I
> hereby declare my allegiance to the dark side. Down with the government.
Depends on the terms you accept when you make the whois inquiry. You may
be violating the terms of the registrar or registry providing the whois
service.
Please note that ICANN mandates that registrars have an access agreement
in place for any bulk request of whois data, most registrar apply the
same rules for use of their whois data in general.
And yes, registrars are free to contractually limit the uses the data
they provide can be put to.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Chris Pelling <chris at netearth.net
> <mailto:chris at netearth.net>> wrote:
>
> Typo materialistic should have been minimalistic
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Chris Pelling" <chris at netearth.net
> <mailto:chris at netearth.net>>
> *To: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> *Sent: *Thursday, 23 March, 2017 12:06:01
>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] a suggestion for "purpose in detail"
>
> Hi all,
>
> I hope everyone got home safe that attended ICANN58 :)
>
> Having just sat through and played catch up on this thread, a few
> things stand out to me.
>
> On one side you have a stakeholder person (maybe group) advocating
> they will pushing for "free whois protection" provided by
> registrar which simply won't happen - for a number of reasons (see
> below), whereas the fundamental issue is what will be collected
> and who will be able to see it. Maybe this could be worked on
> from a materialistic point of view, really what does WHOIS/RDS
> need to show as its most basic data, I remember a discussion some
> months ago where Michele mentioned about simply domain name, dates
> of registration, expiry and DNS servers. (registrar name and abuse
> contact details are a given to be shown)
>
> The storage of such data depending on "whom" the registrant and/or
> other contacts are located, and where it is being seen from
> (different jurisdiction for example) will come out further down
> the line in our deliberations.
>
> Some points/thoughts :
>
> * Cost of providing the service (this includes cost of the
> office, personnel to run it - unless you are going to offer
> this free "John B" to all ICANN registrars ?)
> * The underlying data may not even be allowed to be provided to
> the whois privacy service, unless it is in the local
> jurisdiction of the registrant.
> * Harvesting and storage of whois data to be re-wrapped and sold
> is illegal and many registrars state this on the terms and
> conditions.
> * Gated access has to be properly defined for each gate/right of
> access, an example, a registrar would normally only need
> access to external whois for the purpose of transferring a
> domain name - they have no other reason to need access to this
> data. (registration, is totally different as it doesnt need
> access to the "whois") As above, storage of whois data is
> illegal unless it was for a lawful purpose and the only one I
> can think of is transfers. ICANN require registrars to keep
> this info for upto 2 or 7 years (cant remember which). This
> will step on some registrars toes as well as John H's toes whi
> have a business model around the supply of whois data for
> commercial gain (namely charging for it).
> * I am sorry to say that none of what the WG will do or complete
> will stop bad actors, they are smart, they are not dumb (well
> some of them are:) )
>
> As for John H and clowns, I would gladly offer my services to help
> you get over that :) My issue/phobia is the dark, sadly for me
> that is a reality I won't be able to overcome.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"John Horton" <john.horton at legitscript.com
> <mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com>>
> *To: *"nathalie coupet" <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com
> <mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, 22 March, 2017 16:33:22
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] a suggestion for "purpose in detail"
>
> Thanks, Nathalie. I'm sure many share your frustration!
>
> I think that's a constructive question, and I'll jump in. My
> biggest fear is that in the monitoring that companies like mine do
> for banks, payment providers, e-commerce companies, etc. that
> helps determine whether a merchant is who they say they are, and
> whether they are engaged in other bad activity (i.e., laundering
> money) will be unable to obtain access to the Whois records we
> need in order to preserve the integrity of the payments system,
> protect payment providers from risk, and derivatively protect
> consumers. In other words, my fear is that we'll lose access to
> Whois records, which we need for that purpose.
>
> Actually, to be honest, that's not true -- my biggest fear (to
> answer your question directly) is of clowns, and every time I
> travel, I ask the hotel to please check for clowns in my closet
> before I enter the room. But I assume you didn't really want to
> know my biggest fear -- you just want to know my biggest fear in
> relation to Whois policy, correct? Two different things, but yeah
> -- if a clown jumped out of my hotel closet, that would probably
> be the realization of my biggest fear. That's probably nothing
> that this working group can do much about, though.
>
> John Horton
> President and CEO, LegitScript
>
>
> *FollowLegitScript*: LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | Blog
> <http://blog.legitscript.com> |Google+
> <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:24 AM, nathalie coupet via
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> +1 I must say I'm a bit disillusioned by the entire process.
> This PDP should look like a negotiating table, instead it is
> more like a War of Trenches.
> If stakeholders are not motivated to negotiate, there is no
> sense of urgency and stakes for change are so low, then I
> wonder what we are doing here in the first place.
> Could every stakeholder state what their biggest fear is, and
> we could try to avoid their realization?
> Or maybe, in last resort, we should just vote for the best
> proposal and go home?
>
> Nathalie
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 22, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan
> <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:19:56AM -0500, John Bambenek wrote:
> >> Yes there is a difference which is why I am using both
> words. And that's why I am suggesting we talking about
> optional and maskable fields right up front as part of the
> requirements discussion not some ancillary discussion that
> happens later after all the decisions are already made.
> >>
> >
> > I thought the WG had already decided on a different (multi-pass)
> > strategy, in which data collection itself was treated first
> with the
> > principle that, if there were some (legitmate, hand-wave
> hand-wave)
> > purpose then collection would be considered. Later, the further
> > question of access to such collected items would be taken up.
> >
> > I don't really care which way we do this, but it seems to me
> that we
> > need to stop arguing about the way by which we'll reach a
> result and
> > start actually doing work in the direction of some result. The
> > meta-discussions about process are wearing out contributors
> (well, at
> > least one contributor!) and creating the condition in which
> those who
> > want no changes at all will get their way by exhaustion. If
> ICANN is
> > incapable of coming to terms with the deficiencies of whois (the
> > protocol) after all this time, it will be revealed to be
> ridiculous.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > A
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 <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 <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>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________________
> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170323/f9b99a31/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list