Thanks Ayden for taking the time to express your thoughts.

I will let those who were on the EWG to respond in more detail to your questions if they like but I will share my understanding.  The EWG report recommended the federated model as one of its last decisions.  That said, I want to make it very clear that our WG does not have to accept that recommendation, and based on arguments that have been made on this list, I am convinced that we will seriously question it when the time comes.  But please note that I am not inviting discussion of that now; it will come quite a bit later in our work.

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 8:35 AM
To: Mark Svancarek; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Five models of RDS (was Re: Apologies, and some reflections on requirements)

Thank you for taking the time to outline the architecture of the existing WHOIS service and how it has evolved over time, Andrew. With this background and your extremely useful diagrams I now have a much clearer understanding of to what extent different parties wield control (or not) over the data of registrants. I am not going to be able to enter into any conversation where we are debating the finer technical points of how a protocol functions, but I can comment on more focused policy applications. Certainly I do not want to contribute to any degradation of what has made the Internet what it is today – a place for limitless innovation and where users trust it as safe and secure environment for commerce and communication.

I have tried my best not to approach this working group with any pre-conceived ideas as to what I would like the final outcome to be (partially because I do not have the institutional knowledge to even formulate these ideas in the first place ), but I lay my cards out on the table and say it is very important to me that the Internet’s growth is not impeded in any way. I worry, looking at Model V in particular, that we could end up in a situation where we all end up wishing a different approach could have been taken. We could very well end up with an outcome where the reasons behind establishing this working group are not addressed, where ICANN or another party is stuck with huge costs, and where the Internet’s growth and evolution is permanently stifled.

There are six issues that I see with Model V, four of which Mark has already outlined: questions around jurisdiction, privacy, cost, and service level agreements/overall accountability. I would also like us to consider potential liability for the manager of the federated store for data breaches (and liability for those who have retrieved data from the RDS and have lost it once it was in their possession), along with the potential anti-trust implications of there being one, privately-owned database which all gTLD registries must use.

What I like about the Internet, as we know it today, is that it is for everyone. There is no central authority that permits different classes of Internet activities, which means it is possible for anyone to connect to the network and to build new parts of it. This innovation (which happens organically, without requiring permission) has come about because the Internet’s technologies are based on interoperability and reusable building blocks that might have been built for one purpose but have come to support some other important function at a later date. This is what I want to continue happening. A distributed RDS which anyone can improve through cooperation and collaboration, because its success depends on its continued relevance and utility, and not on some arbitrary clause in a contract that prioritises 'incumbation' (for lack of a better word) over innovation.

I understand that we are not yet at a stage where we should be deliberating on what the RDS should look like (if we even conclude one is required), so before I continue to outline my strong opposition to Model V, may I please clarify: where did the idea for this federated RDS originate from? Is it just because in the wish list of possible requirements we have to consider, a few suggested a federated system? Or is there something more concrete in the works? (And if so, can you please link me to any IETF discussions on this?) Thank you.

Thank you again, Andrew, for taking the time to go back to basics. The diagrams you have produced of how WHOIS-related protocols and services have evolved over time have left me much more informed of the differences between 'thick' and 'thin' registries than I was a few days ago. 

Best wishes,

Ayden

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 5:52 AM, Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org wrote:

That's why I'd be concerned 😃

Sent from my Windows Phone

---

From: Rod Rasmussen
Sent: 7/1/2016 6:27 AM
To: Mark Svancarek
Cc: Andrew Sullivan; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Five models of RDS (was Re:  Apologies, and some reflections on requirements)

ICANN doend’t “run” most of the things coming under it’s remit or in the ecosystem it’s policies guide.  Any sort of RDS system regardless of model would likely fall into this category as well.  I thinks a few of the large registries run 5 9 operations for example…

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:15 PM, Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> wrote:
>
>
> That's why I mentioned my concern about ICANN SLA.  I don't think they are ready to run a 99.999% online service.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.

Ayden Férdeline

Statement of Interest