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

Wed Oct 4 23:36:25 UTC 2017

Andrew,  can you elaborate? All, Just FYI, I just landed back home to
observe a religious holiday starting this evening, so won’t be as active
the rest of the week, unfortunately. I’m looking forward to reviewing the
transcript from the webinar.

I also hope some in the group will be meeting in person later this month at
ICANN60? I would welcome that opportunity since I missed the last meeting!

Thanks
Jonathan

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:01 PM Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> What are you referring to when you say “the Original Registration Date is
> displayed in RDAP”?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* jonathan matkowsky [mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2017 6:08 AM
> *To:* Chuck <consult at cgomes.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>;
> John Bambenek <jcb at bambenekconsulting.com>; Rob Golding <
> rob.golding at astutium.com>
>
>
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Reputation systems are not just nice to
> have (was Re: What we want redux)
>
>
>
>  I agree the memo *is* helpful, even though I think that it made some
> assumptions with respect to the primary and secondary purposes of domain
> registrations that are certainly questionable and I personally don’t
> necessarily agree with for reasons as Allison has articulated in the last
> couple of weeks, but the framework forward as suggested below should work
> for those on both sides of the debate, I believe. The tough part will be
> dealing with the right to be forgotten and how to balance that against info
> that is made public, because not everyone is necessarily a data processor
> or co-controller. It would have been nice to have more analysis on that but
> I think we’re not there yet?
>
>
>
> I agree we should focus on RDS under the assumption that the protocol can
> support it, or be modified slightly (if technically feasible) to support
> our work. Luckily others here will know the answer to that.
>
>
>
> On the Original Registration Date, will the ROID be displayed in the RDS?
> I think this is important to address if we have consensus not to include
> the Original Registration Date. I know it’s displayed in RDAP.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:19 AM Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> Everything you say with one exception is what I would hope we could start
> working on.  The one exception is this:  I don’t think it is this WG’s job
> to work on the protocol?  I believe that RDAP provides the capacity to do
> all of the things you suggest or could be modified to do so if needed.
> Fortunately for us, a large part of the work on the protocol has already
> been done by the technical community and they are capable of doing
> additional work if we develop requirements and ultimately policies to
> define what is needed.
>
> In my opinion, the WSGR final memo provides some helpful information on
> the use of consent by registrants.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *jonathan matkowsky
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2017 1:39 AM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; John Bambenek <
> jcb at bambenekconsulting.com>; Rob Golding <rob.golding at astutium.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Reputation systems are not just nice to
> have (was Re: What we want redux)
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
> *******************************************************************
>
-- 
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/20171004/81574d00/attachment-0001.html>