Hello, Greg: I apologize for being so late with my reply here. I have read Chris' remarks and I do take point on the subject of “separate authenticating bodies for each type of eligible user group” and he is right about the possibility of gaming strategies. On the other hand, it may be difficult to avoid this in some cases. Certain groups have accreditation/governing bodies that might be used for this purpose – they have already validated their “community members”. The challenge here is to examine the gaming possibilities and build mechanisms to avoid them. On Chris' concern about data retention: I would recommend that the intended data retention period be part of the data access request, along with a statement of purpose that covers the proposed use of the data and its retention. On the topic of bulk data access, we need a much sharper definition of what we mean by this. It certainly cannot be a wholesale download of the whole, or even part of the database. It might be, for example, a stream of selected fields across a region that is to be used for statistical purposes (and with a tightly restricted retention period). This sort of access needs to be spelled out. Requests by Law Enforcement Agencies present their own challenges, though. On some of the questions in Section E (pages 7-8): 1. I believe that requests for non-public WHOIS data should describe its purpose on each request. I really need to see the arguments against this. 2. Full WHOIS data should not be returned on a request unless that request specifically asks for it and provides a legitimate reason. 3. Again, I would need to see the arguments against this one, but I feel that the registrant should be allowed to request access to the logs of query activities. On question 5 (page 8) the suggestion that fees would be desirable has been mentioned in discussions I have had, including with members of my ALS. There was some sympathy for the position some Registrars have taken; another suggestion was that this might curb “frivolous” requests. Regards, Gordon Chillcott Greater Toronto Area Linux Users Group On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 00:25 -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
As mentioned on today's CPWG call, ICANN org published a blog earlier this week releasing the proposed Unified Access Model for community input.
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/possible-unified-access-model-published-for-...
The proposal itself can be found here: Draft Framework for a Possible Unified Access Model for Continued Access to Full WHOIS Data – For Discussion
I am the penholder on this comment. Please reply to this email if your are interested in commenting. Thanks!
Greg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org
"The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg