Hello All, Since Michele is out sick I am trying to help move things forward. We will be discussing all the drafting team's work tomorrow on the working group call. We need someone from the DT to provide the final document and present the definition and high level overview of your work. Please let me know who will present for DT1 The leadership has been encouraging the DT's to standardized the format of the definition and to focus on the "information collected". I have suggested changes to the definition below but up to the DT to revise the definition. *Technical Resolution* "Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification and resolution of incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS. Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf." *Academic Research * "Information collected to enable use of aggregate WHOIS data elements by researchers and other similar persons, as a source for academic or other public interest studies or research, relating either solely or in part, to the use of the DNS." Talk to you all tomorrow. Susan
Dear Susan, Many thanks for helping this push along. Alas we did not have enough members present at our scheduled meeting last Friday to continue. Jim Galvin made some edits to the document, which were minor and I have taken the liberty of accepting them through now, in the following Google Doc https://docs.google.com/a/afilias.info/document/d/1PSWtRhOezC83Wa- 9Et3zqtT7KcOr3YpJxij7MCTG6o8/edit?disco=AAAABa6hl3E&ts= 5a05ab1a&usp=comment_email_document In particular the change you suggested to the definition above (thank you Susan), were caught by Jim where we removed the reference to WHOIS. To the remaining members of the Group, I can but suggest that we please all review and provide final comments by tomorrow, (ideally by COB today) as the clock is ticking for our final input on this, and we are behind the curve on our document. (For what it's worth, and I'm only a newbie in this process - I am happy as to the document where it currently is) Kind regards, Alan PS: if there are any issues in accessing this document, please let me know. [image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains> Alan Woods Compliance Manager, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ One Clarendon Row Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello All,
Since Michele is out sick I am trying to help move things forward. We will be discussing all the drafting team's work tomorrow on the working group call. We need someone from the DT to provide the final document and present the definition and high level overview of your work.
Please let me know who will present for DT1
The leadership has been encouraging the DT's to standardized the format of the definition and to focus on the "information collected". I have suggested changes to the definition below but up to the DT to revise the definition.
*Technical Resolution*
"Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification and resolution of incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS.
Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf."
*Academic Research *
"Information collected to enable use of aggregate WHOIS data elements by researchers and other similar persons, as a source for academic or other public interest studies or research, relating either solely or in part, to the use of the DNS."
Talk to you all tomorrow.
Susan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-1 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-1
Thanks so much Alan, really appreciate the work DT1 put into this. Would you be willing to present your teams work on the call today? We are asking each DT to provide a quick overview of 5 minutes. You can let the WG know this is not completely final but that the team is getting close. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Alan Woods <alan@donuts.email> wrote:
Dear Susan,
Many thanks for helping this push along. Alas we did not have enough members present at our scheduled meeting last Friday to continue. Jim Galvin made some edits to the document, which were minor and I have taken the liberty of accepting them through now, in the following Google Doc
https://docs.google.com/a/afilias.info/document/d/1PSWtRhOez C83Wa-9Et3zqtT7KcOr3YpJxij7MCTG6o8/edit?disco=AAAABa6hl3E& ts=5a05ab1a&usp=comment_email_document
In particular the change you suggested to the definition above (thank you Susan), were caught by Jim where we removed the reference to WHOIS.
To the remaining members of the Group,
I can but suggest that we please all review and provide final comments by tomorrow, (ideally by COB today) as the clock is ticking for our final input on this, and we are behind the curve on our document. (For what it's worth, and I'm only a newbie in this process - I am happy as to the document where it currently is)
Kind regards,
Alan
PS: if there are any issues in accessing this document, please let me know.
[image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains> Alan Woods Compliance Manager, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ One Clarendon Row <https://maps.google.com/?q=Clarendon+Row+%0D+Dublin+2,+County+Dublin+%0D+Ire...> Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland
<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc>
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello All,
Since Michele is out sick I am trying to help move things forward. We will be discussing all the drafting team's work tomorrow on the working group call. We need someone from the DT to provide the final document and present the definition and high level overview of your work.
Please let me know who will present for DT1
The leadership has been encouraging the DT's to standardized the format of the definition and to focus on the "information collected". I have suggested changes to the definition below but up to the DT to revise the definition.
*Technical Resolution*
"Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification and resolution of incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS.
Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf."
*Academic Research *
"Information collected to enable use of aggregate WHOIS data elements by researchers and other similar persons, as a source for academic or other public interest studies or research, relating either solely or in part, to the use of the DNS."
Talk to you all tomorrow.
Susan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-1 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-1
Hi Susan, Oh my !! I was working under the incorrect assumption that the call was tomorrow, but of course now that I actually look at my calendar, i can clearly see that it is not. As a result, I am double booked this evening, so I am not actually in a position to do so. *Fellow* *DT1 members *: Who is going to be on the call and is willing to present the high level overview - As Susan noted, Michele is ill, so is not going to be in attendance? As far as I see it the main thrust of our document, is that both definitions are pretty straight forward: 1) *Technical Issues *: Original stated used of the WHOIS system: to trace, identify and resolve incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS 2) Academic or Public Interest DNS Research: Which is use any of the information in the aggregate, to further enable studies into DNS use - there are plenty of great use case examples provide by Greg Aaron on this, as he explained at ICANN 60, and I doubt the team needs such detail again. Apologies to all for my scheduling mix up! Alan [image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains> Alan Woods Compliance Manager, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ One Clarendon Row Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks so much Alan, really appreciate the work DT1 put into this.
Would you be willing to present your teams work on the call today? We are asking each DT to provide a quick overview of 5 minutes. You can let the WG know this is not completely final but that the team is getting close.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Alan Woods <alan@donuts.email> wrote:
Dear Susan,
Many thanks for helping this push along. Alas we did not have enough members present at our scheduled meeting last Friday to continue. Jim Galvin made some edits to the document, which were minor and I have taken the liberty of accepting them through now, in the following Google Doc
https://docs.google.com/a/afilias.info/document/d/1PSWtRhOez C83Wa-9Et3zqtT7KcOr3YpJxij7MCTG6o8/edit?disco=AAAABa6hl3E&ts =5a05ab1a&usp=comment_email_document
In particular the change you suggested to the definition above (thank you Susan), were caught by Jim where we removed the reference to WHOIS.
To the remaining members of the Group,
I can but suggest that we please all review and provide final comments by tomorrow, (ideally by COB today) as the clock is ticking for our final input on this, and we are behind the curve on our document. (For what it's worth, and I'm only a newbie in this process - I am happy as to the document where it currently is)
Kind regards,
Alan
PS: if there are any issues in accessing this document, please let me know.
[image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains> Alan Woods Compliance Manager, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ One Clarendon Row <https://maps.google.com/?q=Clarendon+Row+%0D+Dublin+2,+County+Dublin+%0D+Ire...> Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland
<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc>
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello All,
Since Michele is out sick I am trying to help move things forward. We will be discussing all the drafting team's work tomorrow on the working group call. We need someone from the DT to provide the final document and present the definition and high level overview of your work.
Please let me know who will present for DT1
The leadership has been encouraging the DT's to standardized the format of the definition and to focus on the "information collected". I have suggested changes to the definition below but up to the DT to revise the definition.
*Technical Resolution*
"Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification and resolution of incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS.
Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf."
*Academic Research *
"Information collected to enable use of aggregate WHOIS data elements by researchers and other similar persons, as a source for academic or other public interest studies or research, relating either solely or in part, to the use of the DNS."
Talk to you all tomorrow.
Susan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-1 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-1
No problem Alan, hopefully someone on the team will be able to present if not then we will figure it out. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Alan Woods <alan@donuts.email> wrote:
Hi Susan,
Oh my !! I was working under the incorrect assumption that the call was tomorrow, but of course now that I actually look at my calendar, i can clearly see that it is not. As a result, I am double booked this evening, so I am not actually in a position to do so.
*Fellow* *DT1 members *: Who is going to be on the call and is willing to present the high level overview - As Susan noted, Michele is ill, so is not going to be in attendance?
As far as I see it the main thrust of our document, is that both definitions are pretty straight forward:
1) *Technical Issues *: Original stated used of the WHOIS system: to trace, identify and resolve incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS
2) Academic or Public Interest DNS Research: Which is use any of the information in the aggregate, to further enable studies into DNS use - there are plenty of great use case examples provide by Greg Aaron on this, as he explained at ICANN 60, and I doubt the team needs such detail again.
Apologies to all for my scheduling mix up!
Alan
[image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains> Alan Woods Compliance Manager, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ One Clarendon Row <https://maps.google.com/?q=Clarendon+Row+%0D+Dublin+2,+County+Dublin+%0D+Ire...> Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland
<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc>
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks so much Alan, really appreciate the work DT1 put into this.
Would you be willing to present your teams work on the call today? We are asking each DT to provide a quick overview of 5 minutes. You can let the WG know this is not completely final but that the team is getting close.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Alan Woods <alan@donuts.email> wrote:
Dear Susan,
Many thanks for helping this push along. Alas we did not have enough members present at our scheduled meeting last Friday to continue. Jim Galvin made some edits to the document, which were minor and I have taken the liberty of accepting them through now, in the following Google Doc
https://docs.google.com/a/afilias.info/document/d/1PSWtRhOez C83Wa-9Et3zqtT7KcOr3YpJxij7MCTG6o8/edit?disco=AAAABa6hl3E&ts =5a05ab1a&usp=comment_email_document
In particular the change you suggested to the definition above (thank you Susan), were caught by Jim where we removed the reference to WHOIS.
To the remaining members of the Group,
I can but suggest that we please all review and provide final comments by tomorrow, (ideally by COB today) as the clock is ticking for our final input on this, and we are behind the curve on our document. (For what it's worth, and I'm only a newbie in this process - I am happy as to the document where it currently is)
Kind regards,
Alan
PS: if there are any issues in accessing this document, please let me know.
[image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains> Alan Woods Compliance Manager, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ One Clarendon Row <https://maps.google.com/?q=Clarendon+Row+%0D+Dublin+2,+County+Dublin+%0D+Ire...> Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland
<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc>
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello All,
Since Michele is out sick I am trying to help move things forward. We will be discussing all the drafting team's work tomorrow on the working group call. We need someone from the DT to provide the final document and present the definition and high level overview of your work.
Please let me know who will present for DT1
The leadership has been encouraging the DT's to standardized the format of the definition and to focus on the "information collected". I have suggested changes to the definition below but up to the DT to revise the definition.
*Technical Resolution*
"Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification and resolution of incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS.
Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf."
*Academic Research *
"Information collected to enable use of aggregate WHOIS data elements by researchers and other similar persons, as a source for academic or other public interest studies or research, relating either solely or in part, to the use of the DNS."
Talk to you all tomorrow.
Susan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-1 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-1
I will not be able to attend a drafting team call tomorrow. The below definitions from Susan are problematic. This new Technical Resolution definition is actually very narrow and excludes the examples we have been talking about. For example, if your hosting has been compromised and is serving malware, or your website is broken, neither of those is technically “related to the DNS”, i.e. resolution services. Yes stuff is being served over the DNS, but it’s not at root a ‘DNS problem’. So the current language could be misconstrued to cover an extremely limited set of circumstances, and that’s not what we meant to do. I propose instead: "Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification, and resolution of incidents related to services associated with the domain name.” I also don’t find this qualification workable or necessary, and suggest it be scrapped: “Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf." That gets us back into some of the chicken-or-egg access conversations that have taken place in the WG. Should the data be accessible to (”limited to”) only those who can prove they need it? But how do you know you need it before the problem presents itself? And if you find you are affected and need the info, how are you then going to go about being authorized to see it? It’s not like one knows ahead of time that a site will serve malware at you. Or in a parallel case, if someone will cybersquat on your new company name. Consumers sometimes want to look up domain ownership – but would we require them to get authorized to do so, either pre-need or at the time of need? All best, --Greg From: Gnso-rds-pdp-1 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:35 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-1] Drafting Team 2 Hello All, Since Michele is out sick I am trying to help move things forward. We will be discussing all the drafting team's work tomorrow on the working group call. We need someone from the DT to provide the final document and present the definition and high level overview of your work. Please let me know who will present for DT1 The leadership has been encouraging the DT's to standardized the format of the definition and to focus on the "information collected". I have suggested changes to the definition below but up to the DT to revise the definition. Technical Resolution "Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification and resolution of incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS. Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf." Academic Research "Information collected to enable use of aggregate WHOIS data elements by researchers and other similar persons, as a source for academic or other public interest studies or research, relating either solely or in part, to the use of the DNS." Talk to you all tomorrow. Susan
On 15 Nov 2017, at 1:02, Greg Aaron wrote:
I will not be able to attend a drafting team call tomorrow.
The below definitions from Susan are problematic.
This new Technical Resolution definition is actually very narrow and excludes the examples we have been talking about. For example, if your hosting has been compromised and is serving malware, or your website is broken, neither of those is technically “related to the DNS”, i.e. resolution services. Yes stuff is being served over the DNS, but it’s not at root a ‘DNS problem’. So the current language could be misconstrued to cover an extremely limited set of circumstances, and that’s not what we meant to do. I propose instead: "Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification, and resolution of incidents related to services associated with the domain name.”
I agree with this change.
I also don’t find this qualification workable or necessary, and suggest it be scrapped: “Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf." That gets us back into some of the chicken-or-egg access conversations that have taken place in the WG. Should the data be accessible to (”limited to”) only those who can prove they need it? But how do you know you need it before the problem presents itself? And if you find you are affected and need the info, how are you then going to go about being authorized to see it? It’s not like one knows ahead of time that a site will serve malware at you. Or in a parallel case, if someone will cybersquat on your new company name. Consumers sometimes want to look up domain ownership – but would we require them to get authorized to do so, either pre-need or at the time of need?
I’m less inclined to agree with this change. I am always challenged by the idea that we need to provide a solution for the average Internet user. I frankly just don’t believe that on average they will ever do the things we like to believe they will. If the average user has trouble I’m more inclined to believe they are going to seek help, and I’m more inclined to believe that help will have the resources necessary to help them. I would prefer to keep the words as presented by Susan. Jim
All best, --Greg
From: Gnso-rds-pdp-1 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:35 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-1] Drafting Team 2
Hello All,
Since Michele is out sick I am trying to help move things forward. We will be discussing all the drafting team's work tomorrow on the working group call. We need someone from the DT to provide the final document and present the definition and high level overview of your work.
Please let me know who will present for DT1
The leadership has been encouraging the DT's to standardized the format of the definition and to focus on the "information collected". I have suggested changes to the definition below but up to the DT to revise the definition.
Technical Resolution
"Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification and resolution of incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS.
Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf."
Academic Research
"Information collected to enable use of aggregate WHOIS data elements by researchers and other similar persons, as a source for academic or other public interest studies or research, relating either solely or in part, to the use of the DNS."
Talk to you all tomorrow.
Susan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-1 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-1
I object to the language because: 1) It says gate the data, and make people prove their use case before they can obtain it. Talking about gated access at this point is premature and unnecessary. The exercise is to state use cases, not any conditions to be imposed. That is a reason why the other work teams have not baked gated access into their work. 2) The proposal is problematic on the merits. Are we going to require these users to prove their need before they can get gated access? I question that premise. And I feel certain there's no way practical way to manage gated access for millions of people. Please do not assume that some "average Internet users" don't know how to use WHOIS. Nor should we assume that they can or should get some other kind of "help" from unnamed sources. Clearly some "average" Internet users know how to use WHOIS. And then there's a set of knowledgeable users who do know how to use WHOIS to reach out to a contact about an issue. They all have legitimate uses cases here. Let's use a concrete example: people who need to complain about being victimized online. Yes it's in the cybercrime area, but the issue is the same -- these are "ordinary" Internet users who have a legitimate use, and who may not know know ahead of time that they need to access domain data. To make a complaint about victimization to the FBI, you can fill out a form here: https://www.ic3.gov/complaint/default.aspx/ Many of the people who do so include domain data (see the form fields), which they get by using WHOIS. In 2016, people sent in 298,000 reports using that form. All best, --Greg -----Original Message----- From: James Galvin [mailto:jgalvin@afilias.info] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 10:05 AM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-1] Drafting Team 2 On 15 Nov 2017, at 1:02, Greg Aaron wrote:
I will not be able to attend a drafting team call tomorrow.
The below definitions from Susan are problematic.
This new Technical Resolution definition is actually very narrow and excludes the examples we have been talking about. For example, if your hosting has been compromised and is serving malware, or your website is broken, neither of those is technically “related to the DNS”, i.e. resolution services. Yes stuff is being served over the DNS, but it’s not at root a ‘DNS problem’. So the current language could be misconstrued to cover an extremely limited set of circumstances, and that’s not what we meant to do. I propose instead: "Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification, and resolution of incidents related to services associated with the domain name.”
I agree with this change.
I also don’t find this qualification workable or necessary, and suggest it be scrapped: “Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf." That gets us back into some of the chicken-or-egg access conversations that have taken place in the WG. Should the data be accessible to (”limited to”) only those who can prove they need it? But how do you know you need it before the problem presents itself? And if you find you are affected and need the info, how are you then going to go about being authorized to see it? It’s not like one knows ahead of time that a site will serve malware at you. Or in a parallel case, if someone will cybersquat on your new company name. Consumers sometimes want to look up domain ownership – but would we require them to get authorized to do so, either pre-need or at the time of need?
I’m less inclined to agree with this change. I am always challenged by the idea that we need to provide a solution for the average Internet user. I frankly just don’t believe that on average they will ever do the things we like to believe they will. If the average user has trouble I’m more inclined to believe they are going to seek help, and I’m more inclined to believe that help will have the resources necessary to help them. I would prefer to keep the words as presented by Susan. Jim
All best, --Greg
From: Gnso-rds-pdp-1 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:35 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-1] Drafting Team 2
Hello All,
Since Michele is out sick I am trying to help move things forward. We will be discussing all the drafting team's work tomorrow on the working group call. We need someone from the DT to provide the final document and present the definition and high level overview of your work.
Please let me know who will present for DT1
The leadership has been encouraging the DT's to standardized the format of the definition and to focus on the "information collected". I have suggested changes to the definition below but up to the DT to revise the definition.
Technical Resolution
"Information collected to enable contact of the relevant contacts to facilitate tracing, identification and resolution of incidents, which relate, either entirely or in part, to technical issues relating to the DNS.
Use of such data should ordinarily be limited to those who are affected by such issues, or by those persons who are tasked (directly or indirectly) with the resolution of such matters on their behalf."
Academic Research
"Information collected to enable use of aggregate WHOIS data elements by researchers and other similar persons, as a source for academic or other public interest studies or research, relating either solely or in part, to the use of the DNS."
Talk to you all tomorrow.
Susan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-1 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-1
participants (4)
-
Alan Woods -
Greg Aaron -
James Galvin -
Susan Kawaguchi