[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Equifax hack worse than previously thought: Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc

Fri Feb 16 08:36:21 UTC 2018

Ayden,

If original scope and intent are the metric we are using, I'll point out
that today's Internet is well beyond the original scope and intent. Were
you around for NSF and AUP? HTTP/HTTPS protocol didn't exist. Perhaps we
should all go back to using gopher.

Michael Hammer

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:31 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

> Hi, Nathalie-
>
> I don't think this is a technical question, but a policy one. If I am
> understanding correctly, you are asking, in a tiered-access system, how
> would an Internet end-user be able to retrieve the personally identifiable
> information of a domain name registrant, like he or she can today? I know
> we are getting ahead of ourselves here, because as a Working Group we have
> not started to deliberate on this question, but I wouldn't think that the
> "general public" would satisfy authentication requirements.
>
> Nor do I think they should. A tiered-access system that anyone could use
> would be no different to what we have today in WHOIS. I feel very strongly
> that we need to put an end to the over collection and over publication of
> information that exposes domain name registrants to harm by virtue of their
> online speech. WHOIS data today is being used beyond its narrow, original
> scope and purpose (e.g. to rapidly find a contact to help resolve a
> technical problem related to a domain name), a purpose that was
> unquestionably within the scope and mission of ICANN. The expansion of the
> WHOIS to solve, resolve, threaten, exploit, or 'ascertain the
> trustworthiness' of any type of Internet domain name speaker for any type
> of reason goes far beyond ICANN's narrow technical mission and scope, in my
> opinion.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 16 February 2018 6:19 AM, nathalie coupet via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> To technical people on this list:
> In a tiered-system with authenticated access, how could the general public
> satisfy authentication requirements and what would those be, in order to
> have access to information about the trustworthiness of a website (what
> would this data be)?
> Would it be possible to mandate someone who is duly authorized within the
> registrar to look up the data on her behest? Is there a way to automatize
> this process?
>
> Personal thought: I keep on thinking we will find a silver bullet in the
> principles set by the law of the sea, the mechanisms of the EEZ or natural
> law. Still looking.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nathalie
>
>
> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 7:59 PM, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
>
>
> Good points Chris.  Thanks again.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* Chris Pelling [mailto:chris at netearth.net]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:16 PM
> *To:* Chuck <consult at cgomes.com>
> *Cc:* Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Equifax hack worse than previously
> thought: Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc
>
> No issue Chuck, although, June is very optimistic in my opinion simply
> because the month prior - all hell breaks loose with GDPR :)  At least if
> we look at October, we can get the info out to as many DPA's as poss to get
> them there, plus, being Barcelona, it will be a lot cheaper for the
> countries to send them to Spain than the other side of the world (as
> governmetns dont like paying for very much to start with) :)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Chuck" <consult at cgomes.com>
> *To: *"Chris Pelling" <chris at netearth.net>
> *Cc: *"Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Sent: *Thursday, 15 February, 2018 21:12:23
> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Equifax hack worse than previously
> thought:        Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc
>
> My mistake Chris.  Thanks for setting me straight.  I am probably too
> optimistic, but it would be nice if it could happen in Panama in June.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* Chris Pelling [mailto:chris at netearth.net <chris at netearth.net>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:10 PM
> *To:* Chuck <consult at cgomes.com>
> *Cc:* Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Equifax hack worse than previously
> thought: Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Barcelona is ICANN 63 in October, in June its ICANN 62 in Panama City :
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=icann+meetings+2018&meta=
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Chuck" <consult at cgomes.com>
> *To: *"Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Sent: *Thursday, 15 February, 2018 18:14:24
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Equifax hack worse than previously
> thought:        Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc
>
> Because of the long lead time for scheduling workshops, it’s not too early
> to explore the value of one in Barcelona in June.  It would be helpful if
> we could get to our charter question on Gated Access well before then if
> possible.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 9:45 AM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Equifax hack worse than previously
> thought: Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc
>
> I agree with Sara wholeheartedly.  I would like to propose a workshop at
> the Barcelona meeting to discuss accreditation requirements for
> cybersecurity an IP actors who want to retain access to personal data in a
> tiered access solution.  Release of data in such a system will require
> standards, and I (as mentioned in Abu, on the public panel on GDPR, and in
> my own comments on the 3 models) I think we should get on with developing
> those standards, preferably ISO standards with possibility for independent
> audit.
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2018-02-15 11:34, Sara Bockey wrote:
>
> Our job is now to cooperate in good faith to build a new universal system
> that still fits most needs but also takes data protection as its core
> principle.
>
> EXACTLY! And what’s lacking from most of our conversations are SOLUTIONS.
> We understand that many of you have come to rely on various types of data
> from WHOIS.  We get it.  We’ve heard you.  What we have NOT heard is “we
> understand the changing landscape, and while we are concerned about losing
> X data, perhaps if we do Y, we can improve RDS and still have access OR if
> we do Z, we can _________.”
>
> Given the number of really smart people on this list, I am frustrated by
> the lack of innovative, forward thinking.  Change doesn’t have to be
> scary.  Change can be better - an improvement.  We need to stop with the
> myopia.  We need to stop looking backward.  We need to stop demonizing.  If
> you are not saying something NEW, something to move this PDP *forward*,
> you are part of the problem.
>
> Sara
>
> *sara bockey*
> *sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy™*
> *sbockey at godaddy.com <sbockey at godaddy.com>  480-366-3616
> <(480)%20366-3616>*
> *skype: sbockey*
>
> *This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by
> the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If
> you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender
> and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its
> attachments.*
>
>
> *From: *gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net> <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> *Date: *Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 4:30 AM
> *To: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Equifax hack worse than previously
> thought: Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc
>
> That would be problematic, as you should know, since there is no clear cut
> line of what would constitute over-enforcement or under-enforcement. Well,
> the latter will resolve itself due to the incoming DPA actions.
> I also never heard of fees to be paid into a fund by those simply trying
> to remain compliant with their applicable laws.
> Contracted parties have been stating for years, if not over a decade that
> publication whois details in the current form and shape is problematic from
> a data protection perspective. We have repeatedly tried to drive home the
> point that the current system is not sustainable. We were ignored or
> ridiculed, or asked to get sued to prove our point. Now that we are forced
> to take action, everybody is protesting as if this were something new. It
> is not. Now we have to do a short-term fix, that will hurt more than it
> would have needed to if everyone had cooperated in good faith to reform
> whois years ago. The status quo will change.
> Our job is now to cooperate in good faith to build a new universal system
> that still fits most needs but also takes data protection as its core
> principle.
> Volker out!
>
>
> Am 15.02.2018 um 05:14 schrieb Greg Shatan:
>
> In a similar vein, ICANN could establish an “Over-enforce the GDPR Fund,”
> in which everyone who thinks the GDPR’s data blackout should be extended to
> the data of non-EU and legal persons would pay in, and it would be used to
> defray the expenses incurred by those who should have access to information
> and instead must expend additional time, money and effort, and often incur
> additional harm, due GDPR over-enforcement.
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:03 AM Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> wrote:
>
> Maybe you are hitting on something here.
> ICANN could just establish a "Leave-Whois-as-it-is" legal defense fund.
> Everyone who argues that whois should remain as it is has to pay into that
> fund and everyone who is fined by data protection violations can take the
> fines and their legal costs out of that fund. Of course, that would
> necessitate huge investments to set up the fund from mainly volunteer
> organizations that do not actually have the means to support it.
> Best,
> Volker
>
> Am 14.02.2018 um 02:21 schrieb Rubens Kuhl:
>
>
>
>
> On 13 Feb 2018, at 20:32, John Horton <john.horton at legitscript.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Rubens -- I don't agree with that interpretation. (I think you
> mean the Q&A memo Section 2, right?) See memo here
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-memorandum-part2-18dec17-en.pdf>.
> Let me know if you meant the first or a different one.
>
>
>
> It's exactly that memo.
> Since you don't agree, does that mean that your organisation is willing to
> pay every GDPR fine contracted parties get from following your
> interpretation ? Because if you are unwilling to do that, then your belief
> in that interpretation is not rock solid.
>
> What I can tell you is that this risk has been flagged by that paper, by
> the eco model and by internal analysis of some registries, all
> independently of each other; which means you will likely see a good number
> of contracted parties following exactly the path I outlined in order to
> mitigate this risk.
>
> If you see things differently, get Europeans DPAs to put that in writing,
> and we are all good to go.
>
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180216/93cd2dd7/attachment-0001.html>