Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Next-Gen RDS PDP Working group call held on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-nextgen-rds-30aug16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-nextgen-rds-30aug16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/WxKsAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday, 30 August 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Next-Gen RDS PDP WG Meeting on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:If you wish to speak during the call, please either dial into the audio bridge and give the operator the password RDS, OR click on the telephone icon at the top of the AC room to activate your mics. Please remember to mute your phone and mics when not speaking. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/WxKsAw Chuck Gomes:Welcome everyone Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Nathalie Coupet:Hello Richard Padilla:Hello all Elaine Pruis:chuck I'm just pulling into the Parking garage, could I go 2 or 3rd please Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB:Sorry for gtting in late, train delayed because of a moose on the tracks Holly Raiche:What a marvellous excuse Fabricio Vayra:Hi all. Michael Palage:No Michael Palage:Wull dial in Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):stakeholders might include registrants (staff members acting as private persons when registered domains in their own name) Marika Konings:To enable you audio, you can click the phone symbol at the top of the AC room. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):suggestion Chuck Gomes:Phil was an attorney for NSI. Vicky Sheckler:in my private practice days, we used the whois system as described in this use case for diligence purposes in M&A deals steve metalitz:@Mike Palage is expert testimony a separate use case to be considered? Michele Neylon:You assume they'll co-operate - but I suspect they don't always :) Michael Palage:No special use case just for me Fabricio Vayra:@Andrew, not the case, as sometimes the M&A team needs to find domains registered by employees of the company that the company doesn't realize are registered, but that it intends to pass along in the M&A Michael Palage:Just trying to share how I have used underlying WHois data over the years. Michele Neylon:+1 Fabricio andrew sullivan:@Frabricio: you're arguing then that the RDS is necessary to supplment poor internal controls at the to-be-acquired company andrew sullivan:I think that might be a use case that some people desire, but if that's the case we ought to make that explicit Vicky Sheckler:andrew - its trust but verify in M&A deals andrew sullivan:trust but verify would work under the "here are your access tokens" Fabricio Vayra:@Andrew, that's one argument. But what I'm saying from a basic perspective, that RDS is used to veryfy ownership when manageming one's assets marksv:Perhaps not a neccessary, but certainly a useful tool in these cases, which are less uncommon than one might think. ELAINE PRUIS:thanks for waiting for me, I'm ready whenever you want to put me back in Chuck Gomes:Thanks Elaine andrew sullivan:I don't think it's uncommon. But if the argument is that the RDS is necessary and must have open access in order to support this use case, I think that should be explicit marksv:@AS, good point Griffin Barnett:we hear you Richard Padilla:Yes steve metalitz:A related use case to both Beth's and Elaine's that would not be resolved by access tokens is the business intelligence use of RDS to evaluate potential acquisition targets. Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB:please mute Daniel K. Nanghaka:I think it is more than social media groups, there is also domain spamming from registrar's Susan Kawaguchi:Any social media groups I know would not look to the whois for business marketing analysis unless looking up a specific possible acquisition Michele Neylon:I'd use the hosting data to get an idea of that tbh Daniel K. Nanghaka:they check out for domain owner email and send suggestions to the domain owner andrew sullivan:To be clear, I wasn't arguing against the use case, just trying to probe its limits and understand it Stephanie Perrin:My apologies for being late, I have a few conflicts today andrew sullivan:Surely the argument form can't be, "This is what people are doing so it's a legit use case Volker Greimann:I could not care less about advertizers not getting fodder for their spam campaigns andrew sullivan:" andrew sullivan:because if that's it, then this PDP is a waste of time :) Michele Neylon:Andrew - no - I wasn't saying that marksv:we hear you marksv:(said mark to the person who isn't on chat, doh) ELAINE PRUIS:I thought the question was "how is whois being used" not how would we like it to be used Michele Neylon:Elaine - exactly Chuck Gomes:@ Elaine: Either is okay ELAINE PRUIS:ok my use case addresses how it is being used today ELAINE PRUIS::) andrew sullivan:We definitely have had anti-use-cases, many of which are things that people are doing now Stephanie Perrin:+1 on that one Michele Neylon:Can we all agree that spam is an abuse? :) Richard Padilla:+1 Michele Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Vaibhav Aggarwal:@michele no as mail can go to spam box because of a error in the configuration in the dkim or others Michele Neylon:Vaibhav - oh come on - I'm talking about spam NOT somebody breaking their mail config Michael Palage:I agree with Marina and can attest to similar problems involving bankrupcy cases Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ the general principle that we should consider the domain an asset Vaibhav Aggarwal:cud be un intentional but otherwise yes Vaibhav Aggarwal:domains are assets Vaibhav Aggarwal:definitly Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is more like service obligation Daniel K. Nanghaka:I agree Domain are assets Volker Greimann:ultimately, it is irrelevant if we consider them as asset or not. that is for courts to decide Michael Palage:I think the courts are still out on the whole property v service. According to Umbro it is a service, according to Kremin the ninth cricuit had a three part test Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and in some jurisdictions can not be inherited in case of death of the natural person (cancellation of contracts) andrew sullivan:I think the ccTLD-as-asset and domain-name-as -asset cases are quite different, since the case law is different andrew sullivan:(IANAL, alas, but at least I've read some of that case law.) Ayden Férdeline:very hard to hear Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):depends on the court practice , and depends on country - I think Jeffrey Eckhaus:I think this Working Group should steer clear of the argument of asset or not. Alan Greenberg:I agree Jeff. andrew sullivan:@Jeffrey: completely agree Alan Greenberg:Different jurisdictions may come down in different ways. Stay clear of the formal attribute which could have courts invalidate our work. Daniel K. Nanghaka:I don't think we need to discuss liabilities, Domain is an asset marksv:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/31/terrorism_iran_internet_icann/?userI... Stephanie Perrin:Since ICANN in general has steered clear of that one, I dont see that we have any choice in the matter. Hardly within our remit.... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):do we see similar worldwide approach ? I doubt Volker Greimann:jeff +1 Ayden Férdeline 2:+1 Stephanie Michael Palage:Domain names are like light - dual characteristics of both a wave and partical. Volker Greimann:Alan +1 marksv:alan +1 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 @Alan Stephanie Perrin:More like black holes Mike..... Ayden Férdeline 2:agreed... +1 Michele Stephanie Perrin:(meant as joke, all the physicists on the group need not respond....) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):should we recommend to add to implications: might be limited to local legal practice? Vaibhav Aggarwal:may b for the sake of RDS, Domaining is not part of the business here. but organizational ownership is. I would refer to Susan's face book use case Vaibhav Aggarwal:typos regretted Vaibhav Aggarwal:uniregistry and Verisign and donuts are live examples Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ marina Ayden Férdeline 2:because i heard the term ‘domain investors’ mentioned… i am not an accountant, but aren’t assets usually depreciated over time? does this principle apply too for domain names? i thought people invested in domain names in the hope that they would increase in value over time…? (please feel free to ignore me if i am going off-track - this is just a thought that has come to mind) Vaibhav Aggarwal:agree Vaibhav Aggarwal:Ayden in this case domain names appreciate marksv:I have to drop - thanks for another va;uable discussion, everyone! Stephanie Perrin:All joking aside, I would agree with Marina that it is high time to figure out what domain names are. However ICANN has not. Having just dug through Froomkin's old article "wrong turn in Cyberspace," which is not on our list of required reading, I am wondering why this rather fundamental definitional issue has not been resolved. If you follow his argument, it might be becasuse the Commerce Dept had/has not authority to do policy in this area. Just saying.... Michael Palage:This issue will de decided by a court(s) of law, not by an ICANN PDP that is the cold hard reality Stephanie Perrin:If anyone has an answer on that issue I would love to talk to them.... andrew sullivan:@Stephanie: I think the issue is considerably trickier than many people have considered andrew sullivan:Partly because people don't understand the radically voluntary nature of the Internet Stephanie Perrin:I agree Mike, in a vaccuum a Court will have to decide... Vaibhav Aggarwal:Domaining mostly is through Sedo and Whois privacy is a way of business Holly Raiche:Maybe it's better to think of it as something that a registrant has a legal (enforceable) right to use. As an example, as a tenant, I pay rent and gain the right to be in a property - without owning it Stephanie Perrin:+1 Rod, if we cannot define whether a domain name is a good or a service or an intangible asset.....we have a tough time deciding on the purpose of the records describing them.... Volker Greimann:Domain name=legal title. Michael Palage:The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit really threaded the needle, in affirming the lower court but on different grounds. This decision is reallly worth a careful read by those interested in this topic Volker Greimann:time limited, but renewable Vaibhav Aggarwal:@holly ownership is trasferrerd in the course of investment and m&a andrew sullivan:I don't see why we need to know what this thing is in order to decide the uses of therecords Volker Greimann:VA: You can transfer titles Holly Raiche:What is transferred is a right to use - a legally enforceable right - to use Vaibhav Aggarwal:@corrected tenancy is transferred Vaibhav Aggarwal:right @Volker Stephanie Perrin:+1 Michele Holly Raiche:I'm not saying trnancy cannot be transferred - BUT it is a right to use Vaibhav Aggarwal:yes Michael Palage:For those advancing the "service" side,the best comparable is telephone numbers. A vanbity 800 telephone can be an important asset used in business, and that "asset" can be transferred. However, if you fail to pay you telephone bill and that service will be cancelled and you will lose that "service/asset" Vaibhav Aggarwal:right to use gets transfer legally Marina Lewis:In the chat now...thanks everyone for their comments! Michele Neylon:Michael Palage - good example steve metalitz:@Michele, in your example, the difference is not different use of the DN but different characteristic of regitrant (individual v. company). Vaibhav Aggarwal:@michale example 1-800-flowers andrew sullivan:I feel that the nature of domain names is too metaphysical a problem for us. All we need is to answer how people actually use the RDS and how we want/don't want people do use it Vaibhav Aggarwal::-) Michele Neylon:@Steve - not entirely true. Some ccTLDs base the right to private whois on domain usage Michele Neylon:eg Nominet Michael Palage:Michele ironically the whole Sunrise concept which I authoried as the CHair or Working Group B back in 2000 was based on the right of first refusla used in the telephone market when 800 telelphone people were given right of first refusal to 888. Telephone numbers have always been a good parallel for reference, despit most ICANN types adverse to telephone numbers and the ITU. Michael Palage:sorry for the typos Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michele, some of ccTLDs are not showing anything ... even via WHOIS andrew sullivan:Telephone numbers are a useful analogy in some cases, but there are significant disanalogies Vaibhav Aggarwal:one example - Twitter verification : they use the who is information for general public to verify the handle Stephanie Perrin:Unfortunately the privacy rights also parallel the 800 numbers after the new switching system came in....no ability to block disclosure. Volker Greimann:Interesting. In the cases I have sen on our platforms, criminals tended to rather not reuse information but rather use phone book entries from various places around the world in their registrations. Re-using data makes similar domains rather easy to detect. Michele Neylon:Maxim - very true Marina Lewis:Everyone...I need to jump off for a all. Thanks again for comments. Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Marina, interesting case ELAINE PRUIS:I too have to drop off. Thanks for the interesting use cases and discussion. Alan Greenberg:Doamin registrants sure are an innovative bunch. Vaibhav Aggarwal:thanx marina Alex Deacon:very important use case - one used often by our teams. Dick Leaning:Michele - thats not too unsula as they need to keep track/remeber what they have done as well - as they will use variiations for different providers Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - the 'right to use' can be costrained by what is technically possible. We are really discussing whether the 'right to use' includes the right to have the information (or some of it) be constrained Vicky Sheckler:@alex +1 Stephanie Perrin:Absolutety agree Holly. Right to use does not carry with it a duty to disclose.... Holly Raiche:@ Stephanie - or the opposite: the 'right to use' is now subject to RAA provisions - it is public.What is being discussed is whether it also includes the ability not to disclose some or all of the information Stephanie Perrin:The tenant analogy is a good one. Bad tenants list in Quebec just got thrown out as a breach of privacy law, even though as a landlord I would love to know who is in the habit of not paying their rent, or wrecking the place. Vaibhav Aggarwal::-) Stephanie Perrin:Landlord association had to destroy the list they were sharing. Volker Greimann:afternoon would make remote participation easier for Europe Marika Konings:Please complete the doodle poll at http://doodle.com/poll/ngd7k9dybkwctchx Marika Konings:if you have not done so yet andrew sullivan:I'm afraid I have a high-priority interrupt here and have to drop. Bye all Holly Raiche:Bye Andrew Vaibhav Aggarwal:will doodle shortly Vaibhav Aggarwal:ciao Vaibhav Aggarwal:yiipppeeee Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Nathalie Coupet:bye Patrick Lenihan:Thanks to Each and All! Fabricio Vayra:thanks, all Vlad Dinculescu:thanks all. bye Vaibhav Aggarwal:bye guys thanx Susan Prosser:bye Richard Padilla:bye all Ayden Férdeline:thanks all