[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Reputation systems are not just nice to have (was Re: What we want redux)

[jonathan matkowsky]

Registrants need to be given the option of participating in the public
Whois protocol as an open directory even as an RDS is built on RDAP in
parallel. They need to be given a chance to verify their identity, and
display that verification in RDAP to build trust, as well as opt-in to
making their personal data ungated if they want to. They need to be given
the pros and cons. If having a high reputation based on transparency with
no limitations on contactability is of primary importance to them, then
they should have the ability to opt in. They should also understand that
while providing gated access may protect them from certain abuses, they may
be susceptible to others forms of privacy interferences by doing so, and
that the functionality of their domain may be impacted.  This is true for
their choice whether to elect privacy and proxy as well. Concrete examples
should be provided on both sides, and they should be the ones to decide
(within reason).

Jonathan Matkowsky

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:16 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's remember we're all part of an ecosystem, with valuable roles to play
> (even the lawyers and policy people).  We should make genuine efforts to
> understand each other's experiences, knowledge and perspectives.  This
> jousting is probably not the fastest or easiest way to go about it.
> Thinking you know someone else's job better than they do isn't either.
> Trying to score points to advance a policy objective at the expense of
> getting at the facts isn't either. We should treat this more like an
> investigation and less like a litigation.
>
> And I don't mean an investigation of each other -- a common investigation.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:45 PM John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> I may be operating under a bad assumption, if so, please correct me. My
>> understanding is that the registries and registrars contribution to
>> anti-abuse is in the response to complaints others make. Are there
>> proactive measures you take against abusive domain names I should be aware
>> of? Do you suspend abusive domains, those engaged in brand impersonation,
>> or otherwise illegal activities based on your own initiative?
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 7:50 PM, Rob Golding <rob.golding at astutium.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And yet we are told by
>> >> those who do NOT work in this field and do NOT contribute to solving
>> >> this problem, that we don't need this information.
>> >
>> > A number of those contributing to the discussion are registrars and
>> web-hosts, who deal every day with abuse issues, so very much are the
>> people who deal with "solving this problem" (and are also those telling you
>> that WHOIS data contributes to abuse against real-people rather than
>> abstracts)
>> >
>> >> As far as I can tell, only the anti-abuse people have even proposed a
>> >> compromise... whois privacy for free.
>> >
>> > Some registrars have offered this for years, although now ICANN thinks
>> it should control/set policy/tax that kind of service it may not remain
>> 'free' for long, and certainly isn't free to the registrar to provide (and
>> still leaves the GDPR issue over escrow outstanding)
>> >
>> >
>> > Rob
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-- 
Jonathan Matkowsky

-- 
*******************************************************************
This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated 
recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and 
may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated 
recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you 
receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete 
this message. Thank you.

*******************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171004/bc36c192/attachment.html>