[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] another document that might be of interest

[consult at cgomes.com]

Michael,

I am curious.  Do you think that " ICANN policy should trump local,
regional, and international law"?  Or maybe the question should be " May
ICANN policy trump local, regional, and international law?"

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:52 PM
To: Rod Rasmussen <rod at rodrasmussen.com>; Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] another document that might be of interest

A simple +1, can the wg work towards agreement on the continued purpose,as
it shall determine both the justification of which dat should be included,
as well as determining if and when ICANN policy should trump local,
regional, and international law. There are already conflicting laws and it
should not be the role of the wg to navigate the myriad laws, but to make a
recommendation on what works for the internet as a whole, albeit with
awareness of things that might affect compliance

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:15:25 -0700
Rod Rasmussen  wrote:
> Thank you Andrew, could not have stated this better.
> 
> Folks, we have to remember that whois exists for a reason - it wasnt a 
> whim created to enable spam (which didnt exist at the time) or enable 
> state surveillance, it was created for the operational realities of 
> trying to coordinate actions and issues between network operators, 
> domain holders, and those responsible for making sure the networks 
> could interconnect properly and domains resolve properly.  That 
> FUNDAMENTAL reason for having a whois database, RDS or whatever you 
> call it has not changed.  The Internet isnt a single entity, it is 
> millions of entities representing a myriad of network categories and 
> users all working together to create this amazing global unification 
> tool that all of us today are so lucky to enjoy.  Being able to 
> contact responsible parties when something goes wrong from technical 
> issues to abuse to rights infringement to outright crime is a 
> necessary adjunct to all of us hooking up these networks and network 
> identifiers together in a reliably interoper
 able world.  If we have no tools or information to do this, then the
Balkanization of the Internet in many ways is a very likely possibility as
network operators will logically and likely in concern for their own
liability, start to excise portions of the network they cannot trust due to
lack of contactabilty, transparency or accountability a non-whois world
would have.  I personally will not rest until we remove that possible
outcome, at least on the question of providing reliable contact data via an
RDS so that these fundamental issues and responsibilities of identifier
holders can be rectified by those affected by them.
> 
> Cutting through all the rancor, assertions, positions, etc. that weve seen
on this group, if we could all agree with THIS fundamental concept of why we
need an RDS populated with useful data, the sooner we can work on the
frankly side issues that various legal issues in various parts of the world
present as challenges towards making that happen easily.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rod
> 
>> On Oct 24, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Andrew Sullivan  wrote:
>> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> 
>>> This is a false dichotomy for several reasons.
>> 
>> [and a bunch of other stuff with which I largely agree].  On top of 
>> what Greg says, I think it a strange idea that registrants' interests 
>> are best served by eliminating a tool to increase the reliability and 
>> utility of domain name registrations.  Apart from (IMO parasitic) 
>> domain name speculators, the whole point of registering a domain name 
>> is to function on the Internet.  As I have now said too often to 
>> count, the Internet is partly novel becase it offers distributed 
>> operation and management among operators with no necessary prior 
>> contractual relationship, or even one that is available transitively 
>> through some other contract.  In order to get that kind of operation, 
>> certain tools are a _required_ feature.  One of them is that, if 
>> you're going to operate any infrastructure (and domain names are 
>> Internet infrastructure), certain details about how to reach you are 
>> just going to be required.
>> 
>> We can certainly debate the best way to make that happen, and how 
>> much of it is necessary.  But I don't think it is ever going to be 
>> completely optional, and I think anyone who thinks it can be 
>> completely optional or for that matter not in registrants' interests 
>> needs to think a little harder about the operational and protocol 
>> realities of the Internet as it exists now.
>> 
>> 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



--
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..." 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" is a
Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg