For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
To give the proper context, for those not on the call or who have not listened to the recording, I want to call attention to the last added sentence: "Note that this problem statement is meant as a tool to aid in discussion, consistent with but not a constraint on the Working Group and its Charter." Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows. First paragraph: the addition of "(domain name)" does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, "ever-evolving global Internet" is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words "a variety of other stakeholders'" so as to read: "Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system..." The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: "performant" is not a defined word in the English language; it's more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: "performs well". Third paragraph: rather than "constituency" I think we mean and should use "set of stakeholders." "Stakeholders" ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, "constituency" has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: "This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication." This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a "safe environment for commerce and communication" on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: "within the RDS". Do you mean "that uses the RDS"? "Within the RDS" implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term "system" can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG "system" refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes "system" refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa
Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet." With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…” Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org [Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.] First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”. Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa
I want to quibble a bit about wording here. First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant. Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest. Sam L., NPOC/CSIH /On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:// /
/Hi Greg,// / / //Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."/ / / /With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” // / / / /A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, //*_end-users_,*// and a variety of other stakeholders //*_claim to_*//have a vested interest in an RDS system…”// / / / /Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration./ / / /Best wishes,/ / / /Ayden Férdeline// / /linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>/
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data.
So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes,
--Greg
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lisa Phifer *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM *To:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
*/Action item/*/: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
/Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it. Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement I want to quibble a bit about wording here. First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant. Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest. Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet." With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…” Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows. First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”. Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on. The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.) A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances? All best, --Greg From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it. Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement I want to quibble a bit about wording here. First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant. Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest. Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet." With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…” Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows. First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”. Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Greg, As I understand it the "two camps" are just the providers of data and the users of data. The wording might be "...or other groups, may have interests as providers of data or as users of data depending on circumstances." Sam L. On 8/18/2016 2:58 PM, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.”
What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best,
--Greg
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Camp #1: Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Camp #2: Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders. /msv From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:09 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greg, As I understand it the "two camps" are just the providers of data and the users of data. The wording might be "...or other groups, may have interests as providers of data or as users of data depending on circumstances." Sam L. On 8/18/2016 2:58 PM, Greg Aaron wrote: Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on. The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.) A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances? All best, --Greg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Resending – I see that the current draft has some changes which obscure the original 2-camps distinction. Camp #1: Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Camp #2: Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders. /msv From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:09 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greg, As I understand it the "two camps" are just the providers of data and the users of data. The wording might be "...or other groups, may have interests as providers of data or as users of data depending on circumstances." Sam L. On 8/18/2016 2:58 PM, Greg Aaron wrote: Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on. The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.) A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances? All best, --Greg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Mark, Greg, et. al., In an effort to keep things both simple and clear, /might not "Camp #2" below simply be a specific example of those in Camp #1/ who want data to be "provided/available" under restricted conditions. Maybe the Camp #1 wording could be further tuned to say "... Various stakeholders may have different and distinct requirements..." This replaces "..have similar yet distinct requirements..." and inserts a conditional "may" in front of "have". Sam L. On 8/22/2016 6:43 PM, Mark Svancarek wrote:
Resending – I see that the current draft has some changes which obscure the original 2-camps distinction.
Camp #1:
/Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. /
Camp #2:
/Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders. /
/msv
Actually, I am now liking Sara Bockey’s edits, which dispense with some of this language. Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, and registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data, and which is secure, resilient, accessible, auditable, and performs well. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Additionally, some registrants desire anonymity and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with others. Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances. From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam@lanfranco.net] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:55 PM To: Mark Svancarek <marksv@microsoft.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Mark, Greg, et. al., In an effort to keep things both simple and clear, might not "Camp #2" below simply be a specific example of those in Camp #1 who want data to be "provided/available" under restricted conditions. Maybe the Camp #1 wording could be further tuned to say "... Various stakeholders may have different and distinct requirements..." This replaces "..have similar yet distinct requirements..." and inserts a conditional "may" in front of "have". Sam L. On 8/22/2016 6:43 PM, Mark Svancarek wrote: Resending – I see that the current draft has some changes which obscure the original 2-camps distinction. Camp #1: Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Camp #2: Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders. /msv
To avoid causing more confusion and distributing more versions, in our meeting tomorrow we will use the version of the problem statement that has Ayden’s responses to my questions and comments and then will use that version to discuss edits that have been proposed since then. Please be prepared to discuss additional edits in our meeting including those included in the messages below. Chuck From: Mark Svancarek [mailto:marksv@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 6:57 PM To: Sam Lanfranco; Greg Aaron; Gomes, Chuck; Ayden Férdeline Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Actually, I am now liking Sara Bockey’s edits, which dispense with some of this language. Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, and registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data, and which is secure, resilient, accessible, auditable, and performs well. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Additionally, some registrants desire anonymity and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with others. Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances. From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam@lanfranco.net] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:55 PM To: Mark Svancarek <marksv@microsoft.com<mailto:marksv@microsoft.com>>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Mark, Greg, et. al., In an effort to keep things both simple and clear, might not "Camp #2" below simply be a specific example of those in Camp #1 who want data to be "provided/available" under restricted conditions. Maybe the Camp #1 wording could be further tuned to say "... Various stakeholders may have different and distinct requirements..." This replaces "..have similar yet distinct requirements..." and inserts a conditional "may" in front of "have". Sam L. On 8/22/2016 6:43 PM, Mark Svancarek wrote: Resending – I see that the current draft has some changes which obscure the original 2-camps distinction. Camp #1: Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Camp #2: Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders. /msv
Mark, I agree that Sara's edits make this point more clear and succinct. The prior version, while accurate, may have been hard to track. Greg S. On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg < gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Actually, I am now liking Sara Bockey’s edits, which dispense with some of this language.
Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, and registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data, and which is secure, resilient, accessible, auditable, and performs well. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Additionally, some registrants desire anonymity and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with others. Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.
*From:* Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam@lanfranco.net] *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 3:55 PM *To:* Mark Svancarek <marksv@microsoft.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Mark, Greg, et. al.,
In an effort to keep things both simple and clear, *might not "Camp #2" below simply be a specific example of those in Camp #1* who want data to be "provided/available" under restricted conditions.
Maybe the Camp #1 wording could be further tuned to say "... Various stakeholders may have different and distinct requirements..." This replaces "..have similar yet distinct requirements..." and inserts a conditional "may" in front of "have".
Sam L.
On 8/22/2016 6:43 PM, Mark Svancarek wrote:
Resending – I see that the current draft has some changes which obscure the original 2-camps distinction.
Camp #1:
*Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. *
Camp #2:
*Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders. *
/msv
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, and registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data, and which is secure, resilient, accessible, auditable, and performs well. Additionally, some registrants desire anonymity and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with others
I think we need to expand the "2nd set" (and remove registrants from the 1st set) Something more like : Additionally, Registrants have a right to privacy and a right (locale dependant) to control over access to their data, so their requirements may be at odds with others. Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Yes, this is a good addition, Rob. I support your suggested edit. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 4:10 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 3:10 PM From: rob.golding@astutium.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, and registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data, and which is secure, resilient, accessible, auditable, and performs well. Additionally, some registrants desire anonymity and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with others
I think we need to expand the "2nd set" (and remove registrants from the 1st set) Something more like : Additionally, Registrants have a right to privacy and a right (locale dependant) to control over access to their data, so their requirements may be at odds with others. Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Registrants clearly have interests in the first set and should not be removed from that set. Greg S. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Yes, this is a good addition, Rob. I support your suggested edit.
- Ayden
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 4:10 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 3:10 PM From: rob.golding@astutium.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, and registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data, and which is secure, resilient, accessible, auditable, and performs well. Additionally, some registrants desire anonymity and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with others
I think we need to expand the "2nd set" (and remove registrants from the 1st set) Something more like : Additionally, Registrants have a right to privacy and a right (locale dependant) to control over access to their data, so their requirements may be at odds with others.
Rob
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Rob, Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 11:11 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, and registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data, and which is secure, resilient, accessible, auditable, and performs well. Additionally, some registrants desire anonymity and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with others
I think we need to expand the "2nd set" (and remove registrants from the 1st set) Something more like : Additionally, Registrants have a right to privacy and a right (locale dependant) to control over access to their data, so their requirements may be at odds with others. Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system?
Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is... Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system
Rob
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Volker, I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management. I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is...
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system
Rob
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhzj7Y HszgNSyg&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
+1 Susan. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Volker, I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management. I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is...
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system
Rob
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant ivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C Zcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz j7Y HszgNSyg&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv Ex8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2 M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx 8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
+1 Susan also. Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> Washington, DC 20006-1101<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> 202.263.3284<tel:202.263.3284> direct dial 202.830.0330<tel:202.830.0330> fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> New York, New York 10020-1001<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> 212.506.2345<tel:212.506.2345> direct dial On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> wrote: +1 Susan. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Volker, I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management. I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is... Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding: Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant ivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C Zcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz j7Y HszgNSyg&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv Ex8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2 M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx 8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
I've taken a deeper look at this 5% (or 8%) "awareness" number that is being bandied about. This is a misuse of the data. The question did not ask about awareness of WHOIS. The answer cannot be cited to demonstrate awareness of WHOIS; to do so is misleading. The more I look at the data, the less appropriate it is to cite as if it answers this question. As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." *My primary conclusion after looking at the data is that it is useless to prove anything about "awareness of WHOIS." * My secondary conclusion is that, even if one were to attempt extract some understanding of *use* of WHOIS (not even awareness, which is impossible), relying solely on the WHOIS subset is inappropriate and likely a significant underestimation of those who used WHOIS. First, this is a follow-up question to a users who had "tried to identify who created a particular website" (not "who owns a particular domain name," which would more likely lead to the use of WHOIS, since "who created a particular website" may have nothing to do with the question of domain ownership. Those who had tried were asked "What did you use to figure this out?" (i.e., figure out who "created a particular website"). It's unclear but possible thaqt only a single answer was allowed, even if the user used multiple tools. The fact that 5% or 8% chose to list their use of WHOIS to see who "created a particular website" (not "who owned a particular domain name") proves nothing about *awareness* of WHOIS among those who used other tools. Notably, WHOIS as an answer is grouped with other "Specific Site Search" answers - the rest being Google, Baidu, GoDaddy, DNS records and "other specific site search mentions." (The fact that "WHOIS" is listed as a "specific site search" is enough to make one question the validity of the analysis.) Of those who tried to figure who created a particular site, the greatest number turned to search engines -- not surprising among general users, as search is often the primary tool used to find out *anything * on the Internet. That does not in any way demonstrate their lack of awareness of WHOIS. Also, the WHOIS answer likely undercounts those who actually used WHOIS. There are other answers that may also refer to WHOIS, some with answers nearly as high as those who expressly identified WHOIS as the "specific site" they searched: Domain/IP Address search (5% in 2015, 5% in 2016) Online/Internet tools (Unspecified) (0%, 1%) Using specific sites that classify/provide information on sites (5%, 2%) Check registration/if it’s registered/certificate (2%, 2%) Research (Unspecified) (4%, 1%) GoDaddy (0%, less than 1%) TOTAL 16%, 11% It's impossible to know how many of these refer to WHOIS, but even a minority would double the percentage in each year. Finally, it's worth noting that the number who answered the same question with the answer "Google" were 10% in 2015 and 14% in 2016. It would be ludicrous to say that this indicates 10% "awareness" of Google in 2015 and 14% "awareness" of Google in 2016. Yet people somehow people feel comfortable applying this characterization to the WHOIS answer. I think this is a strong indication that Mark Twain was right. On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. < BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote:
+1 Susan also.
*Brian J. Winterfeldt*
Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
Mayer Brown LLP
bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101
202.263.3284 direct dial
202.830.0330 fax
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020-1001
212.506.2345 direct dial
On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg < gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> wrote:
+1 Susan.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Volker,
I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management.
I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is...
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in
an
RDS
system?
Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an
RDS system
Rob
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant
ivi
rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C
Zcn
XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz
j7Y
HszgNSyg&e=
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
man
_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv
Ex8
xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2
M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.:
DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns
per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom
it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content
of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this
e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or
contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
an_
listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx
8xF
7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12
Bbh
sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Unless someone can help us understand how this discussion is relevant to the tasks in front of us and particularly to our near term work, I suggest that we curtail it. If we discover it to be relevant later, we can resume it then although it is not clear to me that it will be. I also note that Andrew has pointed this out several times. I think all of us have very busy schedules and it is challenging to keep up with everything on this list. When a lot of time is spent discussing issues that are not pertinent to our work, I fear that it will cause some members to lose interest and/or stop reading posts on the list. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:57 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian J. Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement I've taken a deeper look at this 5% (or 8%) "awareness" number that is being bandied about. This is a misuse of the data. The question did not ask about awareness of WHOIS. The answer cannot be cited to demonstrate awareness of WHOIS; to do so is misleading. The more I look at the data, the less appropriate it is to cite as if it answers this question. As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." My primary conclusion after looking at the data is that it is useless to prove anything about "awareness of WHOIS." My secondary conclusion is that, even if one were to attempt extract some understanding of use of WHOIS (not even awareness, which is impossible), relying solely on the WHOIS subset is inappropriate and likely a significant underestimation of those who used WHOIS. First, this is a follow-up question to a users who had "tried to identify who created a particular website" (not "who owns a particular domain name," which would more likely lead to the use of WHOIS, since "who created a particular website" may have nothing to do with the question of domain ownership. Those who had tried were asked "What did you use to figure this out?" (i.e., figure out who "created a particular website"). It's unclear but possible thaqt only a single answer was allowed, even if the user used multiple tools. The fact that 5% or 8% chose to list their use of WHOIS to see who "created a particular website" (not "who owned a particular domain name") proves nothing about awareness of WHOIS among those who used other tools. Notably, WHOIS as an answer is grouped with other "Specific Site Search" answers - the rest being Google, Baidu, GoDaddy, DNS records and "other specific site search mentions." (The fact that "WHOIS" is listed as a "specific site search" is enough to make one question the validity of the analysis.) Of those who tried to figure who created a particular site, the greatest number turned to search engines -- not surprising among general users, as search is often the primary tool used to find out anything on the Internet. That does not in any way demonstrate their lack of awareness of WHOIS. Also, the WHOIS answer likely undercounts those who actually used WHOIS. There are other answers that may also refer to WHOIS, some with answers nearly as high as those who expressly identified WHOIS as the "specific site" they searched: Domain/IP Address search (5% in 2015, 5% in 2016) Online/Internet tools (Unspecified) (0%, 1%) Using specific sites that classify/provide information on sites (5%, 2%) Check registration/if it’s registered/certificate (2%, 2%) Research (Unspecified) (4%, 1%) GoDaddy (0%, less than 1%) TOTAL 16%, 11% It's impossible to know how many of these refer to WHOIS, but even a minority would double the percentage in each year. Finally, it's worth noting that the number who answered the same question with the answer "Google" were 10% in 2015 and 14% in 2016. It would be ludicrous to say that this indicates 10% "awareness" of Google in 2015 and 14% "awareness" of Google in 2016. Yet people somehow people feel comfortable applying this characterization to the WHOIS answer. I think this is a strong indication that Mark Twain was right. On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>> wrote: +1 Susan also. Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 202.263.3284<tel:202.263.3284> direct dial 202.830.0330<tel:202.830.0330> fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 212.506.2345<tel:212.506.2345> direct dial On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> wrote: +1 Susan. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318<tel:415.222.8318> (t) 415.419.9138<tel:415.419.9138> (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Volker, I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management. I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is... Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding: Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant ivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C Zcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz j7Y HszgNSyg&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv Ex8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2 M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx 8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Unless someone can help us understand how this discussion is relevant to the tasks in front of us and particularly to our near term work,
"consumers" are in the "1st camp" mission statement, yet it would _appear_ statistically from the research presented, that it's around 1% of consumers with a "vested interest" so I think the point is that they shouldn't be That's assuming we accept a "domain oriented company" sponsored research into domains, which I would imagine massively overstates the 1.7% by a significant margin (and the results seem equally untrusted by others in the WG) I am having someone code up an actual measurement of registrants accessing the whois data by xref'ing ip accessing domain data within our system, whois requests about their domains, and whois queries from their ips to determine "real" data about registrant knowledge and use of whois - we have the raw data going back to Nov 2009 so can get some useful data to present once that is completed The bulk of our customers are Business, primarily in the under 10M/PA range (so classified under EU levels and micro, small and medium), a "retail" registrar would need to do something similar to give the "personal" registrants viewpoint - Volker @ KS perhaps ? Rob
I think we are have a vocabulary problem: I think you are misreading what "consumers" means here. I have always understood the reference to "Consumers" to mean consumers of goods and services *not* consumers of WHOIS services (or only consumers of goods and services who also use WHOIS services). I would like to make sure we're all clear on that, because we're clearly not all there yet. Assuming that is correct, I won't deal with the rest of the email, which is predicated on what I understand to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the classes of "stakeholders." Greg S. On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com> wrote:
Unless someone can help us understand how this discussion is relevant
to the tasks in front of us and particularly to our near term work,
"consumers" are in the "1st camp" mission statement, yet it would _appear_ statistically from the research presented, that it's around 1% of consumers with a "vested interest" so I think the point is that they shouldn't be
That's assuming we accept a "domain oriented company" sponsored research into domains, which I would imagine massively overstates the 1.7% by a significant margin (and the results seem equally untrusted by others in the WG)
I am having someone code up an actual measurement of registrants accessing the whois data by xref'ing ip accessing domain data within our system, whois requests about their domains, and whois queries from their ips to determine "real" data about registrant knowledge and use of whois - we have the raw data going back to Nov 2009 so can get some useful data to present once that is completed
The bulk of our customers are Business, primarily in the under 10M/PA range (so classified under EU levels and micro, small and medium), a "retail" registrar would need to do something similar to give the "personal" registrants viewpoint - Volker @ KS perhaps ?
Rob
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
On 2016-08-25 01:01, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think we are have a vocabulary problem: I think you are misreading what "consumers" means here. I have always understood the reference to "Consumers" to mean consumers of goods and services
Yes, that's exactly the way I see it, which is why # of whois queries is basically meaningless, unless balanced against something like # of dns queries i.e. some way to see how many people "consumed" a service vs looked for "domain contact info" for that servoce I did some queries earlier, as someone posted April WHOIS counts, comparing number of requests for A/AAAA records vs number of WHOIS queries for the same domains, which is way under 0.001% Sadly there is no (obvious) way to directly equate the # of dns queries to individual "consumers" as the accessing IP data isn't kept > 30 mins (and may not be a 1:1 relationship anyway with so many providers using dynamic and proxy connections) For example accessing a website over our mobile phone provider shows their servers doing the resolving, not the current IP of the mobile phone, and it has some level of caching as refreshes of the pages dont redo the query, and using a 2nd phone also doesnt redo the query So 1 dns query could be 1 access by 1 consumer, multiple accesses by 1 consumer or multiple accesses by multiple consumers - it would however give an "at best x% of consumers do a whois"
Assuming that is correct, I won't deal with the rest of the email, which is predicated on what I understand to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the classes of "stakeholders."
I'm interested numbers to support (or not) this "idea" which contradicts my direct experience as both a Registrar and Registrant, that Registrants do any significant amount of WHOIS lookups of their domains. The only time I recall doing regular whois of my own domains was when consolidating them to our registrar and looking at the status changes during the process - compared to my getting daily reports using an API checking the nameservers of my own and domains I have an interest in. Could I use whois for that - for most tlds, yes - but I hate the idea of scraping text when there are better options available. Rob
I love statistics. Registries must self report whois look up data. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-reports For example, in .com April 2016 ALONE “Whois” Queries* In Millions* 15,000.3 Web-based Whois 6,960,159 Clearly people aware of whois are using it. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I've taken a deeper look at this 5% (or 8%) "awareness" number that is being bandied about.
This is a misuse of the data. The question did not ask about awareness of WHOIS. The answer cannot be cited to demonstrate awareness of WHOIS; to do so is misleading. The more I look at the data, the less appropriate it is to cite as if it answers this question. As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
*My primary conclusion after looking at the data is that it is useless to prove anything about "awareness of WHOIS." *
My secondary conclusion is that, even if one were to attempt extract some understanding of *use* of WHOIS (not even awareness, which is impossible), relying solely on the WHOIS subset is inappropriate and likely a significant underestimation of those who used WHOIS.
First, this is a follow-up question to a users who had "tried to identify who created a particular website" (not "who owns a particular domain name," which would more likely lead to the use of WHOIS, since "who created a particular website" may have nothing to do with the question of domain ownership.
Those who had tried were asked "What did you use to figure this out?" (i.e., figure out who "created a particular website"). It's unclear but possible thaqt only a single answer was allowed, even if the user used multiple tools. The fact that 5% or 8% chose to list their use of WHOIS to see who "created a particular website" (not "who owned a particular domain name") proves nothing about *awareness* of WHOIS among those who used other tools.
Notably, WHOIS as an answer is grouped with other "Specific Site Search" answers - the rest being Google, Baidu, GoDaddy, DNS records and "other specific site search mentions." (The fact that "WHOIS" is listed as a "specific site search" is enough to make one question the validity of the analysis.)
Of those who tried to figure who created a particular site, the greatest number turned to search engines -- not surprising among general users, as search is often the primary tool used to find out *anything * on the Internet. That does not in any way demonstrate their lack of awareness of WHOIS.
Also, the WHOIS answer likely undercounts those who actually used WHOIS. There are other answers that may also refer to WHOIS, some with answers nearly as high as those who expressly identified WHOIS as the "specific site" they searched:
Domain/IP Address search (5% in 2015, 5% in 2016) Online/Internet tools (Unspecified) (0%, 1%) Using specific sites that classify/provide information on sites (5%, 2%) Check registration/if it’s registered/certificate (2%, 2%) Research (Unspecified) (4%, 1%) GoDaddy (0%, less than 1%) TOTAL 16%, 11%
It's impossible to know how many of these refer to WHOIS, but even a minority would double the percentage in each year.
Finally, it's worth noting that the number who answered the same question with the answer "Google" were 10% in 2015 and 14% in 2016. It would be ludicrous to say that this indicates 10% "awareness" of Google in 2015 and 14% "awareness" of Google in 2016. Yet people somehow people feel comfortable applying this characterization to the WHOIS answer. I think this is a strong indication that Mark Twain was right.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. < BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote:
+1 Susan also.
*Brian J. Winterfeldt*
Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
Mayer Brown LLP
bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101
202.263.3284 direct dial
202.830.0330 fax
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020-1001
212.506.2345 direct dial
On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg < gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> wrote:
+1 Susan.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounce s@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Volker,
I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management.
I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is...
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in
an
RDS
system?
Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an
RDS system
Rob
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant
ivi
rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C
Zcn
XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz
j7Y
HszgNSyg&e=
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
man
_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv
Ex8
xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2
M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.:
DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns
per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom
it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content
of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this
e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or
contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
an_
listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx
8xF
7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12
Bbh
sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- [image: Donuts Inc.] <http://www.donuts.domains> *Elaine Pruis*, Vice President, Operations *Donuts Inc. <http://www.donuts.domains>* 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 509.899.3161 [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>[image: Linked In] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
I’m going to heed Chuck’s advice, but just to respond briefly to your message, Elaine, the number of queries you cited does not necessarily translate into human beings performing these searches. So to your comment that, “clearly people aware of whois are using it” – sure, but what is not clear to me from the figures you have extracted is how many unique individuals we talking about. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 24, 2016 10:28 PM UTC Time: August 24, 2016 9:28 PM From: elaine@donuts.email To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org I love statistics. Registries must self report whois look up data. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-reports For example, in .com April 2016 ALONE “Whois” Queries In Millions 15,000.3 Web-based Whois 6,960,159 Clearly people aware of whois are using it. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: I've taken a deeper look at this 5% (or 8%) "awareness" number that is being bandied about. This is a misuse of the data. The question did not ask about awareness of WHOIS. The answer cannot be cited to demonstrate awareness of WHOIS; to do so is misleading. The more I look at the data, the less appropriate it is to cite as if it answers this question. As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." My primary conclusion after looking at the data is that it is useless to prove anything about "awareness of WHOIS." My secondary conclusion is that, even if one were to attempt extract some understanding of use of WHOIS (not even awareness, which is impossible), relying solely on the WHOIS subset is inappropriate and likely a significant underestimation of those who used WHOIS. First, this is a follow-up question to a users who had "tried to identify who created a particular website" (not "who owns a particular domain name," which would more likely lead to the use of WHOIS, since "who created a particular website" may have nothing to do with the question of domain ownership. Those who had tried were asked "What did you use to figure this out?" (i.e., figure out who "created a particular website"). It's unclear but possible thaqt only a single answer was allowed, even if the user used multiple tools. The fact that 5% or 8% chose to list their use of WHOIS to see who "created a particular website" (not "who owned a particular domain name") proves nothing about awareness of WHOIS among those who used other tools. Notably, WHOIS as an answer is grouped with other "Specific Site Search" answers - the rest being Google, Baidu, GoDaddy, DNS records and "other specific site search mentions." (The fact that "WHOIS" is listed as a "specific site search" is enough to make one question the validity of the analysis.) Of those who tried to figure who created a particular site, the greatest number turned to search engines -- not surprising among general users, as search is often the primary tool used to find out anything on the Internet. That does not in any way demonstrate their lack of awareness of WHOIS. Also, the WHOIS answer likely undercounts those who actually used WHOIS. There are other answers that may also refer to WHOIS, some with answers nearly as high as those who expressly identified WHOIS as the "specific site" they searched: Domain/IP Address search (5% in 2015, 5% in 2016) Online/Internet tools (Unspecified) (0%, 1%) Using specific sites that classify/provide information on sites (5%, 2%) Check registration/if it’s registered/certificate (2%, 2%) Research (Unspecified) (4%, 1%) GoDaddy (0%, less than 1%) TOTAL 16%, 11% It's impossible to know how many of these refer to WHOIS, but even a minority would double the percentage in each year. Finally, it's worth noting that the number who answered the same question with the answer "Google" were 10% in 2015 and 14% in 2016. It would be ludicrous to say that this indicates 10% "awareness" of Google in 2015 and 14% "awareness" of Google in 2016. Yet people somehow people feel comfortable applying this characterization to the WHOIS answer. I think this is a strong indication that Mark Twain was right. On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: +1 Susan also. Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 [202.263.3284](tel:202.263.3284) direct dial [202.830.0330](tel:202.830.0330) fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 [212.506.2345](tel:212.506.2345) direct dial On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> wrote: +1 Susan. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor [415.222.8318](tel:415.222.8318) (t) [415.419.9138](tel:415.419.9138) (m) www.markmonitor.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Volker, I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management. I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is... Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding: Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant ivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C Zcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz j7Y HszgNSyg&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv Ex8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2 M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901) Fax.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851) Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / [www.RRPproxy.net](http://www.rrpproxy.net) [ www.domaindiscount24.com](http://www.domaindiscount24.com) / [www.BrandShelter.com](http://www.brandshelter.com) Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901) Fax.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851) Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / [www.RRPproxy.net](http://www.rrpproxy.net) [ www.domaindiscount24.com](http://www.domaindiscount24.com) / [www.BrandShelter.com](http://www.brandshelter.com) Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx 8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- [Donuts Inc.](http://www.donuts.domains) Elaine Pruis, Vice President, Operations [Donuts Inc.](http://www.donuts.domains) 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 509.899.3161[Twitter](https://twitter.com/DonutsInc)[Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds)[Linked In](http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc-)
I too would like to heed Chuck's advice, but have a burning question: Do registries have any way of distinguishing between bots and people, in their citing of stats? If so, how? Could some kind of authentication protocol do this? thanks Stephanie On 2016-08-24 17:42, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
I’m going to heed Chuck’s advice, but just to respond briefly to your message, Elaine, the number of queries you cited does not necessarily translate into human beings performing these searches. So to your comment that, “clearly people aware of whois are using it” – sure, but what is not clear to me from the figures you have extracted is how many unique individuals we talking about.
- Ayden
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 24, 2016 10:28 PM UTC Time: August 24, 2016 9:28 PM From: elaine@donuts.email To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
I love statistics. Registries must self report whois look up data. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-reports For example, in .com April 2016 ALONE “Whois” Queries* In Millions* 15,000.3 Web-based Whois 6,960,159
Clearly people aware of whois are using it.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I've taken a deeper look at this 5% (or 8%) "awareness" number that is being bandied about.
This is a misuse of the data. The question did not ask about awareness of WHOIS. The answer cannot be cited to demonstrate awareness of WHOIS; to do so is misleading. The more I look at the data, the less appropriate it is to cite as if it answers this question. As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
*My primary conclusion after looking at the data is that it is useless to prove anything about "awareness of WHOIS." *
My secondary conclusion is that, even if one were to attempt extract some understanding of _use_ of WHOIS (not even awareness, which is impossible), relying solely on the WHOIS subset is inappropriate and likely a significant underestimation of those who used WHOIS.
First, this is a follow-up question to a users who had "tried to identify who created a particular website" (not "who owns a particular domain name," which would more likely lead to the use of WHOIS, since "who created a particular website" may have nothing to do with the question of domain ownership.
Those who had tried were asked "What did you use to figure this out?" (i.e., figure out who "created a particular website"). It's unclear but possible thaqt only a single answer was allowed, even if the user used multiple tools. The fact that 5% or 8% chose to list their use of WHOIS to see who "created a particular website" (not "who owned a particular domain name") proves nothing about _awareness_ of WHOIS among those who used other tools.
Notably, WHOIS as an answer is grouped with other "Specific Site Search" answers - the rest being Google, Baidu, GoDaddy, DNS records and "other specific site search mentions." (The fact that "WHOIS" is listed as a "specific site search" is enough to make one question the validity of the analysis.)
Of those who tried to figure who created a particular site, the greatest number turned to search engines -- not surprising among general users, as search is often the primary tool used to find out _anything _ on the Internet. That does not in any way demonstrate their lack of awareness of WHOIS.
Also, the WHOIS answer likely undercounts those who actually used WHOIS. There are other answers that may also refer to WHOIS, some with answers nearly as high as those who expressly identified WHOIS as the "specific site" they searched:
Domain/IP Address search (5% in 2015, 5% in 2016) Online/Internet tools (Unspecified) (0%, 1%) Using specific sites that classify/provide information on sites (5%, 2%) Check registration/if it’s registered/certificate (2%, 2%) Research (Unspecified) (4%, 1%) GoDaddy (0%, less than 1%) TOTAL 16%, 11%
It's impossible to know how many of these refer to WHOIS, but even a minority would double the percentage in each year.
Finally, it's worth noting that the number who answered the same question with the answer "Google" were 10% in 2015 and 14% in 2016. It would be ludicrous to say that this indicates 10% "awareness" of Google in 2015 and 14% "awareness" of Google in 2016. Yet people somehow people feel comfortable applying this characterization to the WHOIS answer. I think this is a strong indication that Mark Twain was right.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com <mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>> wrote:
+1 Susan also.
*Brian J. Winterfeldt*
Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
Mayer Brown LLP
bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com <mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101
202.263.3284 <tel:202.263.3284> direct dial
202.830.0330 <tel:202.830.0330> fax
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020-1001
212.506.2345 <tel:212.506.2345> direct dial
On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
+1 Susan.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 <tel:415.222.8318> (t) 415.419.9138 <tel:415.419.9138> (m) www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Volker,
I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management.
I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is...
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an
RDS
system?
Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system
Rob
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant> ivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C Zcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz j7Y HszgNSyg&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail> man _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv Ex8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2 M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm> an_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx 8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
--
Donuts Inc. <http://www.donuts.domains> *Elaine Pruis*, Vice President, Operations *Donuts Inc. <http://www.donuts.domains>* 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 509.899.3161Twitter <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>Linked In <http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Anecdotally, as a regular user of WHOISes, I would say that most if not all WHOIS access pages have "Captchas" or other bot-defenders. Not a direct answer to your question, perhaps, but at least an observation. GregBot On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I too would like to heed Chuck's advice, but have a burning question: Do registries have any way of distinguishing between bots and people, in their citing of stats? If so, how? Could some kind of authentication protocol do this?
thanks
Stephanie
On 2016-08-24 17:42, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
I’m going to heed Chuck’s advice, but just to respond briefly to your message, Elaine, the number of queries you cited does not necessarily translate into human beings performing these searches. So to your comment that, “clearly people aware of whois are using it” – sure, but what is not clear to me from the figures you have extracted is how many unique individuals we talking about.
- Ayden
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 24, 2016 10:28 PM UTC Time: August 24, 2016 9:28 PM From: elaine@donuts.email To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
I love statistics. Registries must self report whois look up data. https://www.icann.org/ resources/pages/registry-reports For example, in .com April 2016 ALONE “Whois” Queries* In Millions* 15,000.3 Web-based Whois 6,960,159
Clearly people aware of whois are using it.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I've taken a deeper look at this 5% (or 8%) "awareness" number that is being bandied about.
This is a misuse of the data. The question did not ask about awareness of WHOIS. The answer cannot be cited to demonstrate awareness of WHOIS; to do so is misleading. The more I look at the data, the less appropriate it is to cite as if it answers this question. As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
*My primary conclusion after looking at the data is that it is useless to prove anything about "awareness of WHOIS." *
My secondary conclusion is that, even if one were to attempt extract some understanding of *use* of WHOIS (not even awareness, which is impossible), relying solely on the WHOIS subset is inappropriate and likely a significant underestimation of those who used WHOIS.
First, this is a follow-up question to a users who had "tried to identify who created a particular website" (not "who owns a particular domain name," which would more likely lead to the use of WHOIS, since "who created a particular website" may have nothing to do with the question of domain ownership.
Those who had tried were asked "What did you use to figure this out?" (i.e., figure out who "created a particular website"). It's unclear but possible thaqt only a single answer was allowed, even if the user used multiple tools. The fact that 5% or 8% chose to list their use of WHOIS to see who "created a particular website" (not "who owned a particular domain name") proves nothing about *awareness* of WHOIS among those who used other tools.
Notably, WHOIS as an answer is grouped with other "Specific Site Search" answers - the rest being Google, Baidu, GoDaddy, DNS records and "other specific site search mentions." (The fact that "WHOIS" is listed as a "specific site search" is enough to make one question the validity of the analysis.)
Of those who tried to figure who created a particular site, the greatest number turned to search engines -- not surprising among general users, as search is often the primary tool used to find out *anything * on the Internet. That does not in any way demonstrate their lack of awareness of WHOIS.
Also, the WHOIS answer likely undercounts those who actually used WHOIS. There are other answers that may also refer to WHOIS, some with answers nearly as high as those who expressly identified WHOIS as the "specific site" they searched:
Domain/IP Address search (5% in 2015, 5% in 2016) Online/Internet tools (Unspecified) (0%, 1%) Using specific sites that classify/provide information on sites (5%, 2%) Check registration/if it’s registered/certificate (2%, 2%) Research (Unspecified) (4%, 1%) GoDaddy (0%, less than 1%) TOTAL 16%, 11%
It's impossible to know how many of these refer to WHOIS, but even a minority would double the percentage in each year.
Finally, it's worth noting that the number who answered the same question with the answer "Google" were 10% in 2015 and 14% in 2016. It would be ludicrous to say that this indicates 10% "awareness" of Google in 2015 and 14% "awareness" of Google in 2016. Yet people somehow people feel comfortable applying this characterization to the WHOIS answer. I think this is a strong indication that Mark Twain was right.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. < BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote:
+1 Susan also.
*Brian J. Winterfeldt*
Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
Mayer Brown LLP
bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101
202.263.3284 direct dial
202.830.0330 fax
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020-1001
212.506.2345 direct dial
On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg < gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> wrote:
+1 Susan.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounce s@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Volker,
I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management.
I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is...
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in
an
RDS
system?
Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an
RDS system
Rob
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant
ivi
rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C
Zcn
XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz
j7Y
HszgNSyg&e=
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
man
_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv
Ex8
xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2
M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.:
DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns
per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom
it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content
of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this
e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or
contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
an_
listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx
8xF
7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12
Bbh
sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
[image: Donuts Inc.] <http://www.donuts.domains> *Elaine Pruis*, Vice President, Operations *Donuts Inc. <http://www.donuts.domains>* 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 509.899.3161[image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>[image: Linked In] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
If another anecdote is helpful, it took me all of one Google search to find a website which claims to be able to perform up to 2,500,000 WHOIS queries in as little as 5 days: https://www.whoisxmlapi.com/bulk-whois-lookup.php Another result was for an API that could perform 500 queries, free of charge, in as little as 15 minutes: https://jsonwhois.com/pricing I have not used either service, but it appears to be possible to perform bulk WHOIS queries without having to enter a CAPTCHA. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 24, 2016 11:44 PM UTC Time: August 24, 2016 10:44 PM From: gregshatanipc@gmail.com To: stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Anecdotally, as a regular user of WHOISes, I would say that most if not all WHOIS access pages have "Captchas" or other bot-defenders. Not a direct answer to your question, perhaps, but at least an observation. GregBot On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: I too would like to heed Chuck's advice, but have a burning question: Do registries have any way of distinguishing between bots and people, in their citing of stats? If so, how? Could some kind of authentication protocol do this? thanks Stephanie On 2016-08-24 17:42, Ayden Férdeline wrote: I’m going to heed Chuck’s advice, but just to respond briefly to your message, Elaine, the number of queries you cited does not necessarily translate into human beings performing these searches. So to your comment that, “clearly people aware of whois are using it” – sure, but what is not clear to me from the figures you have extracted is how many unique individuals we talking about. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 24, 2016 10:28 PM UTC Time: August 24, 2016 9:28 PM From: elaine@donuts.email To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org I love statistics. Registries must self report whois look up data. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-reports For example, in .com April 2016 ALONE “Whois” Queries In Millions 15,000.3 Web-based Whois 6,960,159 Clearly people aware of whois are using it. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: I've taken a deeper look at this 5% (or 8%) "awareness" number that is being bandied about. This is a misuse of the data. The question did not ask about awareness of WHOIS. The answer cannot be cited to demonstrate awareness of WHOIS; to do so is misleading. The more I look at the data, the less appropriate it is to cite as if it answers this question. As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." My primary conclusion after looking at the data is that it is useless to prove anything about "awareness of WHOIS." My secondary conclusion is that, even if one were to attempt extract some understanding of use of WHOIS (not even awareness, which is impossible), relying solely on the WHOIS subset is inappropriate and likely a significant underestimation of those who used WHOIS. First, this is a follow-up question to a users who had "tried to identify who created a particular website" (not "who owns a particular domain name," which would more likely lead to the use of WHOIS, since "who created a particular website" may have nothing to do with the question of domain ownership. Those who had tried were asked "What did you use to figure this out?" (i.e., figure out who "created a particular website"). It's unclear but possible thaqt only a single answer was allowed, even if the user used multiple tools. The fact that 5% or 8% chose to list their use of WHOIS to see who "created a particular website" (not "who owned a particular domain name") proves nothing about awareness of WHOIS among those who used other tools. Notably, WHOIS as an answer is grouped with other "Specific Site Search" answers - the rest being Google, Baidu, GoDaddy, DNS records and "other specific site search mentions." (The fact that "WHOIS" is listed as a "specific site search" is enough to make one question the validity of the analysis.) Of those who tried to figure who created a particular site, the greatest number turned to search engines -- not surprising among general users, as search is often the primary tool used to find out anything on the Internet. That does not in any way demonstrate their lack of awareness of WHOIS. Also, the WHOIS answer likely undercounts those who actually used WHOIS. There are other answers that may also refer to WHOIS, some with answers nearly as high as those who expressly identified WHOIS as the "specific site" they searched: Domain/IP Address search (5% in 2015, 5% in 2016) Online/Internet tools (Unspecified) (0%, 1%) Using specific sites that classify/provide information on sites (5%, 2%) Check registration/if it’s registered/certificate (2%, 2%) Research (Unspecified) (4%, 1%) GoDaddy (0%, less than 1%) TOTAL 16%, 11% It's impossible to know how many of these refer to WHOIS, but even a minority would double the percentage in each year. Finally, it's worth noting that the number who answered the same question with the answer "Google" were 10% in 2015 and 14% in 2016. It would be ludicrous to say that this indicates 10% "awareness" of Google in 2015 and 14% "awareness" of Google in 2016. Yet people somehow people feel comfortable applying this characterization to the WHOIS answer. I think this is a strong indication that Mark Twain was right. On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: +1 Susan also. Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 [202.263.3284](tel:202.263.3284) direct dial [202.830.0330](tel:202.830.0330) fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 [212.506.2345](tel:212.506.2345) direct dial On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> wrote: +1 Susan. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor [415.222.8318](tel:415.222.8318) (t) [415.419.9138](tel:415.419.9138) (m) www.markmonitor.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Volker, I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management. I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is... Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding: Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant ivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C Zcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz j7Y HszgNSyg&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv Ex8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2 M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901) Fax.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851) Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / [www.RRPproxy.net](http://www.rrpproxy.net) [ www.domaindiscount24.com](http://www.domaindiscount24.com) / [www.BrandShelter.com](http://www.brandshelter.com) Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901) Fax.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851) Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / [www.RRPproxy.net](http://www.rrpproxy.net) [ www.domaindiscount24.com](http://www.domaindiscount24.com) / [www.BrandShelter.com](http://www.brandshelter.com) Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx 8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- [Donuts Inc.](http://www.donuts.domains) Elaine Pruis, Vice President, Operations [Donuts Inc.](http://www.donuts.domains) 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: [509.899.3161TwitterFacebookLinked In](tel:509.899.3161) _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
A lot of those services aren’t doing realtime lookups – they often have their own local cache of the records that they’d use. And both registries and registrars do keep track of queries and will apply rate limits etc., on IPs / users that are abusing their systems We run a couple of public facing whois servers – one does use captcha, while the other uses rate limits per IP. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 23:58 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement If another anecdote is helpful, it took me all of one Google search to find a website which claims to be able to perform up to 2,500,000 WHOIS queries in as little as 5 days: https://www.whoisxmlapi.com/bulk-whois-lookup.php Another result was for an API that could perform 500 queries, free of charge, in as little as 15 minutes: https://jsonwhois.com/pricing I have not used either service, but it appears to be possible to perform bulk WHOIS queries without having to enter a CAPTCHA. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 24, 2016 11:44 PM UTC Time: August 24, 2016 10:44 PM From: gregshatanipc@gmail.com To: stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Anecdotally, as a regular user of WHOISes, I would say that most if not all WHOIS access pages have "Captchas" or other bot-defenders. Not a direct answer to your question, perhaps, but at least an observation. GregBot On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: I too would like to heed Chuck's advice, but have a burning question: Do registries have any way of distinguishing between bots and people, in their citing of stats? If so, how? Could some kind of authentication protocol do this? thanks Stephanie On 2016-08-24 17:42, Ayden Férdeline wrote: I’m going to heed Chuck’s advice, but just to respond briefly to your message, Elaine, the number of queries you cited does not necessarily translate into human beings performing these searches. So to your comment that, “clearly people aware of whois are using it” – sure, but what is not clear to me from the figures you have extracted is how many unique individuals we talking about. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 24, 2016 10:28 PM UTC Time: August 24, 2016 9:28 PM From: elaine@donuts.email<mailto:elaine@donuts.email> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> I love statistics. Registries must self report whois look up data. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-reports For example, in .com April 2016 ALONE “Whois” Queries In Millions 15,000.3 Web-based Whois 6,960,159 Clearly people aware of whois are using it. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I've taken a deeper look at this 5% (or 8%) "awareness" number that is being bandied about. This is a misuse of the data. The question did not ask about awareness of WHOIS. The answer cannot be cited to demonstrate awareness of WHOIS; to do so is misleading. The more I look at the data, the less appropriate it is to cite as if it answers this question. As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." My primary conclusion after looking at the data is that it is useless to prove anything about "awareness of WHOIS." My secondary conclusion is that, even if one were to attempt extract some understanding of use of WHOIS (not even awareness, which is impossible), relying solely on the WHOIS subset is inappropriate and likely a significant underestimation of those who used WHOIS. First, this is a follow-up question to a users who had "tried to identify who created a particular website" (not "who owns a particular domain name," which would more likely lead to the use of WHOIS, since "who created a particular website" may have nothing to do with the question of domain ownership. Those who had tried were asked "What did you use to figure this out?" (i.e., figure out who "created a particular website"). It's unclear but possible thaqt only a single answer was allowed, even if the user used multiple tools. The fact that 5% or 8% chose to list their use of WHOIS to see who "created a particular website" (not "who owned a particular domain name") proves nothing about awareness of WHOIS among those who used other tools. Notably, WHOIS as an answer is grouped with other "Specific Site Search" answers - the rest being Google, Baidu, GoDaddy, DNS records and "other specific site search mentions." (The fact that "WHOIS" is listed as a "specific site search" is enough to make one question the validity of the analysis.) Of those who tried to figure who created a particular site, the greatest number turned to search engines -- not surprising among general users, as search is often the primary tool used to find out anything on the Internet. That does not in any way demonstrate their lack of awareness of WHOIS. Also, the WHOIS answer likely undercounts those who actually used WHOIS. There are other answers that may also refer to WHOIS, some with answers nearly as high as those who expressly identified WHOIS as the "specific site" they searched: Domain/IP Address search (5% in 2015, 5% in 2016) Online/Internet tools (Unspecified) (0%, 1%) Using specific sites that classify/provide information on sites (5%, 2%) Check registration/if it’s registered/certificate (2%, 2%) Research (Unspecified) (4%, 1%) GoDaddy (0%, less than 1%) TOTAL 16%, 11% It's impossible to know how many of these refer to WHOIS, but even a minority would double the percentage in each year. Finally, it's worth noting that the number who answered the same question with the answer "Google" were 10% in 2015 and 14% in 2016. It would be ludicrous to say that this indicates 10% "awareness" of Google in 2015 and 14% "awareness" of Google in 2016. Yet people somehow people feel comfortable applying this characterization to the WHOIS answer. I think this is a strong indication that Mark Twain was right. On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>> wrote: +1 Susan also. Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 202.263.3284<tel:202.263.3284> direct dial 202.830.0330<tel:202.830.0330> fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 212.506.2345<tel:212.506.2345> direct dial On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> wrote: +1 Susan. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318<tel:415.222.8318> (t) 415.419.9138<tel:415.419.9138> (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Volker, I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management. I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is... Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding: Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_ant ivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5C Zcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhz j7Y HszgNSyg&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gv Ex8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2 M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx 8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- [onuts Inc.]<http://www.donuts.domains> Elaine Pruis, Vice President, Operations Donuts Inc.<http://www.donuts.domains> 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 509.899.3161[witter][acebook][inked In]<tel:509.899.3161> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
On 2016-08-24 23:38, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I too would like to heed Chuck's advice, but have a burning question: Do registries have any way of distinguishing between bots and people, in their citing of stats? If so, how?
Speaking as a Registrar, we can/do, so I'd certainly expect it of Registries: * multiple queries in a very short space of time * regular / consistent queries of the same domains * queries of large numbers of domains from the same ip etc Most bots are usually pretty obvious - there are the 'clever' and 'responsible' bots/bot-authors/bot-using-orgs that spread load and not normally trying to "hide" who they are, so are given more latitude than others Abusive levels of whois queries tend to get banned and even a handful of queries from a single source can get you blocked by many registrars and registries for a period It can be a pain with com/net as the only current way to get the contact details (until the thick-whois project completes) as a gaining registrar is via the losing registrar whois server - some dont work reliably, some block you at very low levels from radar registered ips, lots dont work over ipv6 etc Hit one recently who blocked you at *4 queries* in 10 minutes - a problem when the registrant was moving over 20 domains ! A lot of whois 'bots' aren't the right/best/appropriate way to get the data they're after anyway - a case of a little knowlege being dangerous - badly thought out drop-catcher type bots being one category that do excessive queries on the same domains which is not proper solution for what they're wanting to achieve Rob
Thanks so much for this reply! Helps a lot; when one is not in this business, it is hard to imagine the details. Stephanie On 2016-08-24 21:28, Rob Golding wrote:
On 2016-08-24 23:38, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
I too would like to heed Chuck's advice, but have a burning question: Do registries have any way of distinguishing between bots and people, in their citing of stats? If so, how?
Speaking as a Registrar, we can/do, so I'd certainly expect it of Registries: * multiple queries in a very short space of time * regular / consistent queries of the same domains * queries of large numbers of domains from the same ip etc
Most bots are usually pretty obvious - there are the 'clever' and 'responsible' bots/bot-authors/bot-using-orgs that spread load and not normally trying to "hide" who they are, so are given more latitude than others
Abusive levels of whois queries tend to get banned and even a handful of queries from a single source can get you blocked by many registrars and registries for a period
It can be a pain with com/net as the only current way to get the contact details (until the thick-whois project completes) as a gaining registrar is via the losing registrar whois server - some dont work reliably, some block you at very low levels from radar registered ips, lots dont work over ipv6 etc
Hit one recently who blocked you at *4 queries* in 10 minutes - a problem when the registrant was moving over 20 domains !
A lot of whois 'bots' aren't the right/best/appropriate way to get the data they're after anyway - a case of a little knowlege being dangerous - badly thought out drop-catcher type bots being one category that do excessive queries on the same domains which is not proper solution for what they're wanting to achieve
Rob
Hit one recently who blocked you at *4 queries* in 10 minutes - a problem when the registrant was moving over 20 domains !
Yeah – I’ve seen that with some registrars in the past as well. Rather annoying! -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 2016-08-24 22:28, Elaine Pruis wrote:
I love statistics.
Me too :)
Registries must self report whois look up data. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-reports For example, in .com April 2016 ALONE “Whois” Queries IN MILLIONS 15,000.3 Web-based Whois 6,960,159
.com is a "thin whois" there is no end-user identifiable data in the registry results, simply the expiry date, status, registrar and nameservers. So a fantastic example of whois being used and/or useful and yet not needing the bulk of the proposed RDS datasets :) Rob
I stand by this point. Most people who register a domain names will not know what whois is. They will eve contact us and demand their private data from being removed. Yes, more savy registrants will know, but most people who register one or two domains in their lives will not know. Best, Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 18:35 schrieb Susan Kawaguchi:
Volker,
I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management.
I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is...
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system
Rob
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhzj7Y HszgNSyg&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:57:03PM +0200, Volker Greimann wrote:
I stand by this point. Most people who register a domain names will not know what whois is.
I am perfectly prepared to believe that, but I don't understand why it is relevant. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
That is your personal experience as a retail registrar and I still contend if you look at your help desk requests that it is not a high percentage of your own registrants and definitely not for registrants that register more than 1 or 2 domain names at a time. Do most of your customers only own 1 or 2 domain names? We should get data around this. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. On 8/23/16, 9:57 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I stand by this point. Most people who register a domain names will not know what whois is. They will eve contact us and demand their private data from being removed. Yes, more savy registrants will know, but most people who register one or two domains in their lives will not know.
Best,
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:35 schrieb Susan Kawaguchi:
Volker,
I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management.
I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is...
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system
Rob
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_anti vi
rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZ cn
XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhzj 7Y HszgNSyg&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an
_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvE x8
xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M 12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8 xF
7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12B bh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
On 2016-08-23 17:57, Volker Greimann wrote:
I stand by this point. Most people who register a domain names will not know what whois is. They will eve contact us and demand their private data from being removed.
We constantly get Registrants of all types wanting to exercise their _Right_ to privacy, requesting their details are removed from whois (and 3rd party caches/crawls of it) Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR * domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups *
I think this is a fair point, and I am guilty of saying end users do not know what WHOIS is. I will in future say most small businesses, individual registrants, and associations do not know what WHOIS is.... Thanks Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-23 12:35, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Volker,
I completely disagree with your statement most registrants do not even what whois isŠ. I might agree with most internet users do not know what registration data is or where to find it but a good portion of domain names are registered to commercial entities who completely understand the whois and use it daily for domain name management.
I am sure you receive inquiries about whois from some registrants but I would guess the vast majority of registrants understand whois. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
On 8/23/16, 9:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I tend to agree. Most registrants do not even know what whois is...
Volker
Am 23.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Rob Golding:
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system? Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system
Rob
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi rus&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcn XwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=zEmZ1lTVED4qGJFCLfh1cgrCvpUl5xhzj7Y HszgNSyg&e=
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8 xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12 BbhsfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e= -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQIF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=urT5CZcnXwGvl43p6PPaxa7CQx8mZT7ZsafsbqAkLcc&s=mQl2M12Bbh sfrqiFs2wEm0WYIxRuKOmOPwf3fJvhD6w&e=
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
So they have a vested interest in whether there is an RDS or not. In other words they have a vested interest in what the WG does. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 12:17 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Are you suggesting that registrants do not have a vested interest in an RDS system?
Correct - I believe they have a vested interest in there not being an RDS system Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
I would suggest that there is a different camp: Service providers (potentially part of the domain name industry) that desire a system of data collection and storage that is 100% in line with legal requirements for the collection and storage of and access to such data to avoid being accessories to illegal violations of their customers' rights! Best, Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 00:40 schrieb Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
Camp #1:
/Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. /
Camp #2:
/Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders. /
/msv
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Sam Lanfranco *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:09 PM *To:* Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Greg, As I understand it the "two camps" are just the providers of data and the users of data.
The wording might be "...or other groups, may have interests as providers of data or as users of data depending on circumstances."
Sam L.
On 8/18/2016 2:58 PM, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.”
What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best,
--Greg
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email:Lanfran@Yorku.ca <mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog:http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Isn’t it true that we want to consider all camps regardless of how many there are? We may decide that the needs of some camps are not legitimate (e.g., abusers). If my assumption is correct, then it is not essential for us to identify all camps at this time. Moreover, if we try to list an all-inclusive list, we risk leaving some out. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 4:30 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement I would suggest that there is a different camp: Service providers (potentially part of the domain name industry) that desire a system of data collection and storage that is 100% in line with legal requirements for the collection and storage of and access to such data to avoid being accessories to illegal violations of their customers' rights! Best, Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 00:40 schrieb Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg: Camp #1: Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Camp #2: Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders. /msv From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:09 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com><mailto:gca@icginc.com>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com><mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com><mailto:icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greg, As I understand it the "two camps" are just the providers of data and the users of data. The wording might be "...or other groups, may have interests as providers of data or as users of data depending on circumstances." Sam L. On 8/18/2016 2:58 PM, Greg Aaron wrote: Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on. The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.) A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances? All best, --Greg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
I think this entire notion of "camps" is the wrong way to go about it. It's a military metaphor, after all, and it suggests that someone needs to "win the battle". If we start from that point of view, we risk polarization for no obvious good reason, we possibly neglect alternative points of view that are less concerned about this particular dichotomy, and we undermine the multi- part of multi-stakeholder. Best regards, A On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:40:07PM +0000, Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
Camp #1: Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed.
Camp #2: Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders.
/msv
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:09 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Greg, As I understand it the "two camps" are just the providers of data and the users of data.
The wording might be "...or other groups, may have interests as providers of data or as users of data depending on circumstances." Sam L. On 8/18/2016 2:58 PM, Greg Aaron wrote: Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
You are probably right. The more we subdivide, the more argumentative it is going to get. I was just observing that the two camps proposed below were to narrow and did not encompass all customers. Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 15:38 schrieb Andrew Sullivan:
I think this entire notion of "camps" is the wrong way to go about it. It's a military metaphor, after all, and it suggests that someone needs to "win the battle". If we start from that point of view, we risk polarization for no obvious good reason, we possibly neglect alternative points of view that are less concerned about this particular dichotomy, and we undermine the multi- part of multi-stakeholder.
Best regards,
A
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:40:07PM +0000, Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
Camp #1: Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed.
Camp #2: Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders.
/msv
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:09 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Greg, As I understand it the "two camps" are just the providers of data and the users of data.
The wording might be "...or other groups, may have interests as providers of data or as users of data depending on circumstances." Sam L. On 8/18/2016 2:58 PM, Greg Aaron wrote: Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
“The more we subdivide, the more argumentative it is going to get.” This is the point I was trying to drive in my original post and my concern about the statement being too complex. I may be completely naïve, but it seems to me that if we keep the statement concise, whereby including all, and account for rules, regulations and laws, as noted in the first paragraph, much of the “tensions” and concerns held by the various groups will be addressed. It will be a more focused discussion where we can find common ground and compromise. Granted, there would likely still be a handful of concerns to address and resolve, but it would be a handful, not an ocean. Sara On 8/23/16, 7:27 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: You are probably right. The more we subdivide, the more argumentative it is going to get. I was just observing that the two camps proposed below were to narrow and did not encompass all customers. Volker Am 23.08.2016 um 15:38 schrieb Andrew Sullivan: > I think this entire notion of "camps" is the wrong way to go about it. > It's a military metaphor, after all, and it suggests that someone > needs to "win the battle". If we start from that point of view, we > risk polarization for no obvious good reason, we possibly neglect > alternative points of view that are less concerned about this > particular dichotomy, and we undermine the multi- part of > multi-stakeholder. > > Best regards, > > A > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:40:07PM +0000, Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote: >> Camp #1: >> Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. >> >> Camp #2: >> Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders. >> >> /msv >> >> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:09 PM >> To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> >> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement >> >> >> Greg, As I understand it the "two camps" are just the providers of data and the users of data. >> >> The wording might be "...or other groups, may have interests as providers of data or as users of data depending on circumstances." >> Sam L. >> On 8/18/2016 2:58 PM, Greg Aaron wrote: >> Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on. >> >> The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.) >> >> A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” >> What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances? >> >> All best, >> --Greg >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> >> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured >> >> in an unjust state" -Confucius >> >> 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> >> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) >> >> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 >> >> email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco >> >> blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >> >> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list >> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg > -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Thank you very much for doing this Greg. To hopefully make it easier on everyone going forward, I created and attached a clean version. As you can see I also deleted all of Greg’s comments except for one, which appears to me may need further discussion. To ensure that I am not being too presumptuous in accepting all of the changes I ask everyone to point out any wording that is objectionable and why and suggest edits to the clean version. I especially encourage the small working group who created the earlier draft to let us know if any of your key points have been lost and how that might be fixed. If we decide that any of the accepted edits should be reversed, we can of course do that. In the meantime, please make future edits using the attached clean version. Also please communicate if you think we are getting close to a version that you can support, keeping in mind the last sentence. Chuck From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gca@icginc.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:59 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Sam Lanfranco; Ayden Férdeline Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on. The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.) A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances? All best, --Greg From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net<mailto:sam@lanfranco.net>>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it. Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement I want to quibble a bit about wording here. First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant. Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest. Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet." With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…” Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows. First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”. Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Hi, I am comfortable, I think, with this version. I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Greetings all, Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Hi, I am comfortable, I think, with this version. I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Thank you, Ayden, this is very helpful. I’ve added one comment to the document for consideration. Best regards, Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 2:06 PM To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greetings all, Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Hi, I am comfortable, I think, with this version. I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Sara, I agree with you that “it’s not part of ICANN’s remit to resolve stakeholder tensions” but I think it is important to note that this is a problem statement for this WG, not for ICANN in general. And I do believe that the WG will have to try to find solutions to mitigate the tensions among stakeholders with regard to possible RDS requirements and policies. In fact, I believe that this is a key point of the overall problem statement. If I am incorrect on that, then I encourage members of the small drafting team to correct me as well as anyone in the WG. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:59 PM To: Ayden Férdeline; Andrew Sullivan Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Thank you, Ayden, this is very helpful. I’ve added one comment to the document for consideration. Best regards, Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Date: Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 2:06 PM To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greetings all, Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Hi, I am comfortable, I think, with this version. I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net<mailto:sam@lanfranco.net>>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com%3cmailto:gca@icginc.com>> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca%3cmailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca>> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Hi, On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:18:13PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
the WG will have to try to find solutions to mitigate the tensions among stakeholders with regard to possible RDS requirements and policies. In fact, I believe that this is a key point of the overall problem statement.
I don't think we actually disagree about this, but let me try to put a different gloss on that and see whether you think it's right. Our problem is not to resolve the tension among stakeholders or different parties. Our problem is to forge a policy that takes into account those various views, with the understanding that the goal is ultimately to produce a policy that produces the best outcome for the Internet (which means also for the constituent networks and the actual and potential users of them). One consequence of that understanding is that we probably should not produce policies that radically empower one set of views at the overwhelming cost of another, unless the losing view is itself something that does not contribute to good outcomes for the Internet. (So, for instance, it's ok to say that a view which desires to undermine the end to end principle is one we simply will not accommodate: its entire goal is to undermine the basis of internetworking.) ICANN policies are best when they support and promote the interoperation of networks that make up the Internet, where those policies impinge upon the DNS at the levels closest to the root zone. Some of that policy inevitably interacts with national laws, sub-, trans-, and inter-national issues in operation of the constituent networks, and issues that arise at the nexus of protocol operation and use of those protocols (where the "users" in this case are the entire class of anyone who wants to use the Internet at the top-most parts of the DNS). For that reason, ICANN policies need to reflect those conditions, which means taking into account the legal and political realities that affect the Internet wherever it is deployed. At the same time, we need to accept and recognise that some legal and political demands really do represent a threat to the Internet itself, and such demands (regardless of which legal regime backs them) are not something that ICANN policy can legitimately accommodate. Therefore, we set our bar too high if we think we can _resolve_ the tussle[1]. All we can do is work out a _modus vivendi_ in which some new stage in the tussle stabilizes for a period. It seems to me that we are at a stage in Internet development where everyone acknowledges that (1) the existing state of affairs is unsatisfying to just about everyone and (2) the technology has evolved in ways that permit us to look at desires with fresh eyes and attempt to make new, medium-term-stable arrangements. Does that seem close to what you're trying to suggest? Best regards, A [1] http://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf. In my opinion, anyone who hasn't read that paper and who is participating in Internet policy development is doing him or herself a disservice. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
In my opinion, you are right on Andrew. Thanks. I think you said it very well in the following: " Our problem is to forge a policy that takes into account those various views, with the understanding that the goal is ultimately to produce a policy that produces the best outcome for the Internet (which means also for the constituent networks and the actual and potential users of them). One consequence of that understanding is that we probably should not produce policies that radically empower one set of views at the overwhelming cost of another, unless the losing view is itself something that does not contribute to good outcomes for the Internet. (So, for instance, it's ok to say that a view which desires to undermine the end to end principle is one we simply will not accommodate: its entire goal is to undermine the basis of internetworking.)" Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:43 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] High level goal (was Re: For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement) Hi, On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:18:13PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
the WG will have to try to find solutions to mitigate the tensions among stakeholders with regard to possible RDS requirements and policies. In fact, I believe that this is a key point of the overall problem statement.
I don't think we actually disagree about this, but let me try to put a different gloss on that and see whether you think it's right. Our problem is not to resolve the tension among stakeholders or different parties. Our problem is to forge a policy that takes into account those various views, with the understanding that the goal is ultimately to produce a policy that produces the best outcome for the Internet (which means also for the constituent networks and the actual and potential users of them). One consequence of that understanding is that we probably should not produce policies that radically empower one set of views at the overwhelming cost of another, unless the losing view is itself something that does not contribute to good outcomes for the Internet. (So, for instance, it's ok to say that a view which desires to undermine the end to end principle is one we simply will not accommodate: its entire goal is to undermine the basis of internetworking.) ICANN policies are best when they support and promote the interoperation of networks that make up the Internet, where those policies impinge upon the DNS at the levels closest to the root zone. Some of that policy inevitably interacts with national laws, sub-, trans-, and inter-national issues in operation of the constituent networks, and issues that arise at the nexus of protocol operation and use of those protocols (where the "users" in this case are the entire class of anyone who wants to use the Internet at the top-most parts of the DNS). For that reason, ICANN policies need to reflect those conditions, which means taking into account the legal and political realities that affect the Internet wherever it is deployed. At the same time, we need to accept and recognise that some legal and political demands really do represent a threat to the Internet itself, and such demands (regardless of which legal regime backs them) are not something that ICANN policy can legitimately accommodate. Therefore, we set our bar too high if we think we can _resolve_ the tussle[1]. All we can do is work out a _modus vivendi_ in which some new stage in the tussle stabilizes for a period. It seems to me that we are at a stage in Internet development where everyone acknowledges that (1) the existing state of affairs is unsatisfying to just about everyone and (2) the technology has evolved in ways that permit us to look at desires with fresh eyes and attempt to make new, medium-term-stable arrangements. Does that seem close to what you're trying to suggest? Best regards, A [1] http://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf. In my opinion, anyone who hasn't read that paper and who is participating in Internet policy development is doing him or herself a disservice. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
+1. We are never going to resolve the tensions, because the approach to the matter between different groups with different interests is vast. We need to strike a bargain that seems fair enough for the moment. Detente. But I don't recommend introducing that word Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-18 18:42, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:18:13PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
the WG will have to try to find solutions to mitigate the tensions among stakeholders with regard to possible RDS requirements and policies. In fact, I believe that this is a key point of the overall problem statement. I don't think we actually disagree about this, but let me try to put a different gloss on that and see whether you think it's right.
Our problem is not to resolve the tension among stakeholders or different parties. Our problem is to forge a policy that takes into account those various views, with the understanding that the goal is ultimately to produce a policy that produces the best outcome for the Internet (which means also for the constituent networks and the actual and potential users of them). One consequence of that understanding is that we probably should not produce policies that radically empower one set of views at the overwhelming cost of another, unless the losing view is itself something that does not contribute to good outcomes for the Internet. (So, for instance, it's ok to say that a view which desires to undermine the end to end principle is one we simply will not accommodate: its entire goal is to undermine the basis of internetworking.)
ICANN policies are best when they support and promote the interoperation of networks that make up the Internet, where those policies impinge upon the DNS at the levels closest to the root zone. Some of that policy inevitably interacts with national laws, sub-, trans-, and inter-national issues in operation of the constituent networks, and issues that arise at the nexus of protocol operation and use of those protocols (where the "users" in this case are the entire class of anyone who wants to use the Internet at the top-most parts of the DNS). For that reason, ICANN policies need to reflect those conditions, which means taking into account the legal and political realities that affect the Internet wherever it is deployed. At the same time, we need to accept and recognise that some legal and political demands really do represent a threat to the Internet itself, and such demands (regardless of which legal regime backs them) are not something that ICANN policy can legitimately accommodate.
Therefore, we set our bar too high if we think we can _resolve_ the tussle[1]. All we can do is work out a _modus vivendi_ in which some new stage in the tussle stabilizes for a period. It seems to me that we are at a stage in Internet development where everyone acknowledges that (1) the existing state of affairs is unsatisfying to just about everyone and (2) the technology has evolved in ways that permit us to look at desires with fresh eyes and attempt to make new, medium-term-stable arrangements.
Does that seem close to what you're trying to suggest?
Best regards,
A
[1] http://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf. In my opinion, anyone who hasn't read that paper and who is participating in Internet policy development is doing him or herself a disservice.
Also well said Stephanie. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:23 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] High level goal (was Re: For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement) +1. We are never going to resolve the tensions, because the approach to the matter between different groups with different interests is vast. We need to strike a bargain that seems fair enough for the moment. Detente. But I don't recommend introducing that word Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-18 18:42, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Hi, On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:18:13PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote: the WG will have to try to find solutions to mitigate the tensions among stakeholders with regard to possible RDS requirements and policies. In fact, I believe that this is a key point of the overall problem statement. I don't think we actually disagree about this, but let me try to put a different gloss on that and see whether you think it's right. Our problem is not to resolve the tension among stakeholders or different parties. Our problem is to forge a policy that takes into account those various views, with the understanding that the goal is ultimately to produce a policy that produces the best outcome for the Internet (which means also for the constituent networks and the actual and potential users of them). One consequence of that understanding is that we probably should not produce policies that radically empower one set of views at the overwhelming cost of another, unless the losing view is itself something that does not contribute to good outcomes for the Internet. (So, for instance, it's ok to say that a view which desires to undermine the end to end principle is one we simply will not accommodate: its entire goal is to undermine the basis of internetworking.) ICANN policies are best when they support and promote the interoperation of networks that make up the Internet, where those policies impinge upon the DNS at the levels closest to the root zone. Some of that policy inevitably interacts with national laws, sub-, trans-, and inter-national issues in operation of the constituent networks, and issues that arise at the nexus of protocol operation and use of those protocols (where the "users" in this case are the entire class of anyone who wants to use the Internet at the top-most parts of the DNS). For that reason, ICANN policies need to reflect those conditions, which means taking into account the legal and political realities that affect the Internet wherever it is deployed. At the same time, we need to accept and recognise that some legal and political demands really do represent a threat to the Internet itself, and such demands (regardless of which legal regime backs them) are not something that ICANN policy can legitimately accommodate. Therefore, we set our bar too high if we think we can _resolve_ the tussle[1]. All we can do is work out a _modus vivendi_ in which some new stage in the tussle stabilizes for a period. It seems to me that we are at a stage in Internet development where everyone acknowledges that (1) the existing state of affairs is unsatisfying to just about everyone and (2) the technology has evolved in ways that permit us to look at desires with fresh eyes and attempt to make new, medium-term-stable arrangements. Does that seem close to what you're trying to suggest? Best regards, A [1] http://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf. In my opinion, anyone who hasn't read that paper and who is participating in Internet policy development is doing him or herself a disservice.
Hi Chuck, I agree 100% that finding solutions to mitigate the tensions among stakeholders is a key point of the problem statement. Ignoring this fact, wishing it away or defining it as out of scope would be a mistake IMO. Alex On Aug 18, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Sara, I agree with you that “it’s not part of ICANN’s remit to resolve stakeholder tensions” but I think it is important to note that this is a problem statement for this WG, not for ICANN in general. And I do believe that the WG will have to try to find solutions to mitigate the tensions among stakeholders with regard to possible RDS requirements and policies. In fact, I believe that this is a key point of the overall problem statement. If I am incorrect on that, then I encourage members of the small drafting team to correct me as well as anyone in the WG. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:59 PM To: Ayden Férdeline; Andrew Sullivan Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Thank you, Ayden, this is very helpful. I’ve added one comment to the document for consideration. Best regards, Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Date: Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 2:06 PM To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greetings all, Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Hi, I am comfortable, I think, with this version. I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net<mailto:sam@lanfranco.net>>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline><http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com%3cmailto:gca@icginc.com>> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca%3cmailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca>> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com<http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com/>
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Hi, I really dislike the "claim to have interests" here. I think it's false. First, the point of this (or any) PDP is not to gather up all the people in the world who noticed that we're here, and to deal with their claims. There are interests, and to the extent we can represent them (even if we haven't heard directly from them) we ought to do so. If we think we can't do that, then this PDP has no legitimacy at all to make policy about this sort of thing, and the usual claims of those who think that this should all be run by governments under international treaties are much more legitimate. I happen to think we _can_ represent those various interests, however, with a little care and thought. (I have the same kind of objection to "resolving the tension among the varied and competing views of stakeholders on key issues", now that I think harder about it, because we're not actually only responsive to views people participating here hold.) Second, it's needlessly tendentious, because it appears to suggest that some of the claims are phony or false or something. We can just say there are interests. We could say in addition that we need to weigh the satisfaction of the various interests against each other -- something I think is partly intended by the "core problem" statement in ¶1. On the whole, I suppose, I don't especially care: the sentence at the end makes it clear that the constraint is the charter and not this statement. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:06:30PM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Greetings all,
Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks!
Best wishes,
Ayden
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Hi,
I am comfortable, I think, with this version.
I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Good points Andrew. It seems to me that some fairly simple edits could be made to the clean version to address your concerns. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:02 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Hi, I really dislike the "claim to have interests" here. I think it's false. First, the point of this (or any) PDP is not to gather up all the people in the world who noticed that we're here, and to deal with their claims. There are interests, and to the extent we can represent them (even if we haven't heard directly from them) we ought to do so. If we think we can't do that, then this PDP has no legitimacy at all to make policy about this sort of thing, and the usual claims of those who think that this should all be run by governments under international treaties are much more legitimate. I happen to think we _can_ represent those various interests, however, with a little care and thought. (I have the same kind of objection to "resolving the tension among the varied and competing views of stakeholders on key issues", now that I think harder about it, because we're not actually only responsive to views people participating here hold.) Second, it's needlessly tendentious, because it appears to suggest that some of the claims are phony or false or something. We can just say there are interests. We could say in addition that we need to weigh the satisfaction of the various interests against each other -- something I think is partly intended by the "core problem" statement in ¶1. On the whole, I suppose, I don't especially care: the sentence at the end makes it clear that the constraint is the charter and not this statement. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:06:30PM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Greetings all,
Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks!
Best wishes,
Ayden
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Hi,
I am comfortable, I think, with this version.
I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@ica nn.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,g nso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@ica nn.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Ayden, I asked for feedback and you gave it so thanks for that. But I am not clear why you made most of the edits you suggested so I inserted some comments and questions in the attached file. It would definitely help me if you responded to my comments and hopefully help others as well. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:07 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greetings all, Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Hi, I am comfortable, I think, with this version. I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net<mailto:sam@lanfranco.net>>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com%3cmailto:gca@icginc.com>> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca%3cmailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca>> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Ayden, It would be very helpful to receive your responses to my questions and comments before our WG call tomorrow. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:39 PM To: Ayden Férdeline; Andrew Sullivan Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Ayden, I asked for feedback and you gave it so thanks for that. But I am not clear why you made most of the edits you suggested so I inserted some comments and questions in the attached file. It would definitely help me if you responded to my comments and hopefully help others as well. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:07 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greetings all, Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Hi, I am comfortable, I think, with this version. I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net<mailto:sam@lanfranco.net>>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com%3cmailto:gca@icginc.com>> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca%3cmailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca>> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Chuck, Please find attached responses to your comments. Regards, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 22, 2016 6:57 PM UTC Time: August 22, 2016 5:57 PM From: cgomes@verisign.com To: cgomes@verisign.com,icann@ferdeline.com,ajs@anvilwalrusden.com gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Ayden, It would be very helpful to receive your responses to my questions and comments before our WG call tomorrow. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:39 PM To: Ayden Férdeline; Andrew Sullivan Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Ayden, I asked for feedback and you gave it so thanks for that. But I am not clear why you made most of the edits you suggested so I inserted some comments and questions in the attached file. It would definitely help me if you responded to my comments and hopefully help others as well. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:07 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greetings all, Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Hi, I am comfortable, I think, with this version. I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.”
What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best,
--Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM
To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: [ gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org](mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org)> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron
Cc: RDS PDP WG
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH
On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM
UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM
From: [ gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com](mailto:gca@icginc.com%3cmailto:gca@icginc.com)>
To: [ lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org](mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org)>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data.
So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes,
--Greg
From: [ gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org](mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org)> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM
To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best,
Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
[ gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org](mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org)>
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: [ Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca](mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca%3cmailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca)> Skype: slanfranco
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Thank you very much for your very helpful responses. Lisa – Let’s use this version for our WG call tomorrow. Chuck From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann@ferdeline.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Chuck, Please find attached responses to your comments. Regards, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 22, 2016 6:57 PM UTC Time: August 22, 2016 5:57 PM From: cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> To: cgomes@verisign.com,icann@ferdeline.com,ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com,icann@ferdeline.com,ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Ayden, It would be very helpful to receive your responses to my questions and comments before our WG call tomorrow. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:39 PM To: Ayden Férdeline; Andrew Sullivan Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Ayden, I asked for feedback and you gave it so thanks for that. But I am not clear why you made most of the edits you suggested so I inserted some comments and questions in the attached file. It would definitely help me if you responded to my comments and hopefully help others as well. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:07 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Greetings all, Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 2016 8:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Hi, I am comfortable, I think, with this version. I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating. Best regards, A On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net<mailto:sam@lanfranco.net>>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com%3cmailto:gca@icginc.com>> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca%3cmailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca>> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Agreed, the word "complete" is very subjective and will probably be the subject of a lengthy and spirited discussion down the road. V. Am 18.08.2016 um 22:02 schrieb Andrew Sullivan:
Hi,
I am comfortable, I think, with this version.
I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're actually debating.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, etc.)
A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.” What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
All best, --Greg
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM To: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg,
Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."
With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes, --Greg
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
I agree with Sam's comments here wholeheartedly. Greg Shatan On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> wrote:
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH
*On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:*
*Hi Greg,*
*Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."*
*With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” *
*A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, **end-users,** and a variety of other stakeholders **claim to** have a vested interest in an RDS system…”*
*Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.*
*Best wishes,*
*Ayden Férdeline* *linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>*
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data.
So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes,
--Greg
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Lisa Phifer *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM *To:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
*Action item*
*: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. *Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
It might be a US English vs UK English thing, but here the standard is Consumer is the entity purchasing an item, and End-User is the entity utilising the item So in a generic context, the Consumer of a Toothbrush is the person who pays for it at the till, whereas the End-User would be the person cleaning their teeth. Sometimes they are the same, but not necessarily.
a vested interest in an RDS system
I think should be ... "an interest in the creation of/access to, or cancellation of/limiting access to, an RDS system" Rob
Dear Ayden: Your phrase “stakeholders claim to have a vested interest” has problems associated with it. That language implies that a group of stakeholders on the list might not have a valid interest, and therefore may not be legitimate. Maybe you put the word “claim” in the wrong place, or meant to use the word differently. All stakeholders will make many assertions or arguments or claims over the course of time, and the WP will make some judgments about those and their use cases. In this WG, I assume that all participants are stakeholders with an interest. I may not agree with someone’s position (i.e. claims) on an issue, but I will not question someone’s right to participate. We know that “consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system.” They are all stakeholders, and don’t just claim to be. I think that has been uncontroversial, acknowledged wisdom in this WG, also documented in past ICANN efforts on this subject. Sure, insert “end-users” if you like. We could also insert “security practitioners” and other groups. By inserting “a variety of other stakeholders” I was hoping to be inclusive without trying to create an exhaustive list. All best, --Greg From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam@lanfranco.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement I want to quibble a bit about wording here. First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant. Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest. Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet." With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…” Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows. First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”. Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
I think it is important to define these terms even for the purposes of this document. Firstly, many people think of consumers as users of the Internet, not necessarily consumers of the RDS product we come up with, or registrants (eg law enforcement argument for consumer protection, not necessarily getting consumers motivated to check the RDS themselves). We need to clarify our use of this word, in my view. Secondly, end-users in the context of the RDS in my view means those who use the product we come up with....includes bulk purchasers, private sector security folks, domain speculators, etc. I am responsible for complaining about the words "ever evolving global internet" as I believe we open too wide a door here. Some parties want ICANN to be one-stop-shopping for Internet issues, I do not. I believe I represent the majority view of the NCSG stakeholder group in that regard. Therefore I want to constrain that language. I also want to set realistic expectations, we are not going to solve all the problems, nor should we try. I agree having the notion (caution) that we are working on an aspect (DNS) of an infrastructure that is dynamic and evolving is a good idea. It is hard to word in a way that does not fling open the door to all issues, though. If you want it back in, Ayden, can you come up with something limited? I agree with Ayden's use of claim. I am not sure that everyone who wants more information in the RDS has a valid "claim" to be a stakeholder. Opportunistic promotion of free personal data happens all the time, I would call that a claim, not a stakeholder right. If we start getting into what rights end users of the INternet have we had better buckle up for a long ride. We will have enough trouble pushing back existing practices that violate law and fail to recognize registrant risk. We have to examine all such use cases as "claims". I am also aware that as one who claims to be representing end users generally at ICANN (ie the civil society role) I will have to justify my claims as well. WHile I take Sam's point that the quibble could be "do I represent end users, am I therefore a stakeholder" but I am convinced that is not where the discussion needs to be. Stakeholders make claims, we need to examine those claims. As for the vesting issue.... since we at ICANN represent a tiny proportion of those in the ecosystem, I think vesting could be dropped. Folks have an interest. Those who are not paying attention arguably don't have a vested interest. It's a quibble but it just might be one word too many there. cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-17 11:58, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant.
Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
Sam L., NPOC/CSIH
/On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:// /
/Hi Greg,// / / //Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."/ / / /With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” // / / / /A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, //*_end-users_,*// and a variety of other stakeholders //*_claim to_*//have a vested interest in an RDS system…”// / / / /Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration./ / / /Best wishes,/ / / /Ayden Férdeline// / /linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>/
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows.
First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.
First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)
Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.
Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”.
Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.
Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data.
So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.
Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.
With best wishes,
--Greg
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lisa Phifer *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM *To:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
*/Action item/*/: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
/Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email:Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog:http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
I thought we were already buckled up for a long ride! ☺ For those who haven’t buckled your seat belts, please do so. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:35 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement I think it is important to define these terms even for the purposes of this document. Firstly, many people think of consumers as users of the Internet, not necessarily consumers of the RDS product we come up with, or registrants (eg law enforcement argument for consumer protection, not necessarily getting consumers motivated to check the RDS themselves). We need to clarify our use of this word, in my view. Secondly, end-users in the context of the RDS in my view means those who use the product we come up with....includes bulk purchasers, private sector security folks, domain speculators, etc. I am responsible for complaining about the words "ever evolving global internet" as I believe we open too wide a door here. Some parties want ICANN to be one-stop-shopping for Internet issues, I do not. I believe I represent the majority view of the NCSG stakeholder group in that regard. Therefore I want to constrain that language. I also want to set realistic expectations, we are not going to solve all the problems, nor should we try. I agree having the notion (caution) that we are working on an aspect (DNS) of an infrastructure that is dynamic and evolving is a good idea. It is hard to word in a way that does not fling open the door to all issues, though. If you want it back in, Ayden, can you come up with something limited? I agree with Ayden's use of claim. I am not sure that everyone who wants more information in the RDS has a valid "claim" to be a stakeholder. Opportunistic promotion of free personal data happens all the time, I would call that a claim, not a stakeholder right. If we start getting into what rights end users of the INternet have we had better buckle up for a long ride. We will have enough trouble pushing back existing practices that violate law and fail to recognize registrant risk. We have to examine all such use cases as "claims". I am also aware that as one who claims to be representing end users generally at ICANN (ie the civil society role) I will have to justify my claims as well. WHile I take Sam's point that the quibble could be "do I represent end users, am I therefore a stakeholder" but I am convinced that is not where the discussion needs to be. Stakeholders make claims, we need to examine those claims. As for the vesting issue.... since we at ICANN represent a tiny proportion of those in the ecosystem, I think vesting could be dropped. Folks have an interest. Those who are not paying attention arguably don't have a vested interest. It's a quibble but it just might be one word too many there. cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-17 11:58, Sam Lanfranco wrote: I want to quibble a bit about wording here. First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant. Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest. Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet." With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…” Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows. First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”. Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Please note – an earlier draft was “Brand holders, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners all have a vested interest in an RDS system which is accurate, complete, performant, resilient, and auditable. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Another extremely important stakeholder group is the global population of end-users. End-users may be individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups.” …seems like we may want to revert back some of that verbiage? More comments inline From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10:35 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement I think it is important to define these terms even for the purposes of this document. Firstly, many people think of consumers as users of the Internet, not necessarily consumers of the RDS product we come up with, or registrants (eg law enforcement argument for consumer protection, not necessarily getting consumers motivated to check the RDS themselves). We need to clarify our use of this word, in my view. Secondly, end-users in the context of the RDS in my view means those who use the product we come up with....includes bulk purchasers, private sector security folks, domain speculators, etc. I am responsible for complaining about the words "ever evolving global internet" as I believe we open too wide a door here. Some parties want ICANN to be one-stop-shopping for Internet issues, I do not. I believe I represent the majority view of the NCSG stakeholder group in that regard. [Mark Svancarek] I agree that ICANN has a well-defined scope and it should stick to that scope. I do think that “ever-evolving” is fair considering IPv6, DNSSEC, new gTLDs, EAI and IDN are impacting us simultaneously. I understand your point that if we don’t design our policy for the Internet-that-is, and target the Internet-that-may-become, we’ll never be able to finish... Therefore I want to constrain that language. I also want to set realistic expectations, we are not going to solve all the problems, nor should we try. I agree having the notion (caution) that we are working on an aspect (DNS) of an infrastructure that is dynamic and evolving is a good idea. It is hard to word in a way that does not fling open the door to all issues, though. If you want it back in, Ayden, can you come up with something limited? [Mark Svancarek] “…meet the needs of the existing global Internet and accommodate changes already anticipated (e.g. DNSSEC)” ? I agree with Ayden's use of claim. I am not sure that everyone who wants more information in the RDS has a valid "claim" to be a stakeholder. Opportunistic promotion of free personal data happens all the time, I would call that a claim, not a stakeholder right. [Mark Svancarek] makes sense If we start getting into what rights end users of the INternet have we had better buckle up for a long ride. We will have enough trouble pushing back existing practices that violate law and fail to recognize registrant risk. We have to examine all such use cases as "claims". I am also aware that as one who claims to be representing end users generally at ICANN (ie the civil society role) I will have to justify my claims as well. WHile I take Sam's point that the quibble could be "do I represent end users, am I therefore a stakeholder" but I am convinced that is not where the discussion needs to be. Stakeholders make claims, we need to examine those claims. As for the vesting issue.... since we at ICANN represent a tiny proportion of those in the ecosystem, I think vesting could be dropped. Folks have an interest. Those who are not paying attention arguably don't have a vested interest. It's a quibble but it just might be one word too many there. [Mark Svancarek] okay cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-17 11:58, Sam Lanfranco wrote: I want to quibble a bit about wording here. First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant. Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest. Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet." With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…” Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows. First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”. Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Hi All, I have some serious concerns regarding the problem statement as it currently exists. It is overly complex and trying to account for things that are simply beyond ICANN’s remit, such as resolving tensions. If we are to get anywhere in this process, everyone will need to compromise. The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached. Best, Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: Mark Svancarek <marksv@microsoft.com> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:50 PM To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Please note – an earlier draft was “Brand holders, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners all have a vested interest in an RDS system which is accurate, complete, performant, resilient, and auditable. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Another extremely important stakeholder group is the global population of end-users. End-users may be individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups.” …seems like we may want to revert back some of that verbiage? More comments inline From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10:35 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement I think it is important to define these terms even for the purposes of this document. Firstly, many people think of consumers as users of the Internet, not necessarily consumers of the RDS product we come up with, or registrants (eg law enforcement argument for consumer protection, not necessarily getting consumers motivated to check the RDS themselves). We need to clarify our use of this word, in my view. Secondly, end-users in the context of the RDS in my view means those who use the product we come up with....includes bulk purchasers, private sector security folks, domain speculators, etc. I am responsible for complaining about the words "ever evolving global internet" as I believe we open too wide a door here. Some parties want ICANN to be one-stop-shopping for Internet issues, I do not. I believe I represent the majority view of the NCSG stakeholder group in that regard. [Mark Svancarek] I agree that ICANN has a well-defined scope and it should stick to that scope. I do think that “ever-evolving” is fair considering IPv6, DNSSEC, new gTLDs, EAI and IDN are impacting us simultaneously. I understand your point that if we don’t design our policy for the Internet-that-is, and target the Internet-that-may-become, we’ll never be able to finish... Therefore I want to constrain that language. I also want to set realistic expectations, we are not going to solve all the problems, nor should we try. I agree having the notion (caution) that we are working on an aspect (DNS) of an infrastructure that is dynamic and evolving is a good idea. It is hard to word in a way that does not fling open the door to all issues, though. If you want it back in, Ayden, can you come up with something limited? [Mark Svancarek] “…meet the needs of the existing global Internet and accommodate changes already anticipated (e.g. DNSSEC)” ? I agree with Ayden's use of claim. I am not sure that everyone who wants more information in the RDS has a valid "claim" to be a stakeholder. Opportunistic promotion of free personal data happens all the time, I would call that a claim, not a stakeholder right. [Mark Svancarek] makes sense If we start getting into what rights end users of the INternet have we had better buckle up for a long ride. We will have enough trouble pushing back existing practices that violate law and fail to recognize registrant risk. We have to examine all such use cases as "claims". I am also aware that as one who claims to be representing end users generally at ICANN (ie the civil society role) I will have to justify my claims as well. WHile I take Sam's point that the quibble could be "do I represent end users, am I therefore a stakeholder" but I am convinced that is not where the discussion needs to be. Stakeholders make claims, we need to examine those claims. As for the vesting issue.... since we at ICANN represent a tiny proportion of those in the ecosystem, I think vesting could be dropped. Folks have an interest. Those who are not paying attention arguably don't have a vested interest. It's a quibble but it just might be one word too many there. [Mark Svancarek] okay cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-17 11:58, Sam Lanfranco wrote: I want to quibble a bit about wording here. First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users may be redundant. Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,. It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest. Sam L., NPOC/CSIH On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet." With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…” Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows. First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”. Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Sara's redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.) If the "core problem" is really to "account for rules, regulations and laws" then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those "rules, regulations and laws"? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed. [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
Turning this over to the GAC is indeed not conductive to efficient and goal-oriented problem solving, yet ICANN needs to also be careful not to intrude in what the GAC may view as the job of governments, i.e. regulating the powers of law enforcement and cross border jurisdiction. Am 23.08.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.)
If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed.
*image001*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: 202.355.7902 |met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>**
*Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
*_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Sullivan *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without
extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Fair and good points Steve and Volker. Just hoping the problem statement will make our jobs easier, not harder, but perhaps that’s not possible. Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Turning this over to the GAC is indeed not conductive to efficient and goal-oriented problem solving, yet ICANN needs to also be careful not to intrude in what the GAC may view as the job of governments, i.e. regulating the powers of law enforcement and cross border jurisdiction. Am 23.08.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.) If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed. [mage001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Agree with SusanK. I know many registrants (individuals, corporations, etc) who are quite versed in Whois and the purpose of it. -Susan ~~~~ Susan Prosser VP, Customer Services DomainTools, LLC T: (206) 838-9060 E: susan@domaintools.com PGP: A2C4D2A4 On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> wrote:
Fair and good points Steve and Volker. Just hoping the problem statement will make our jobs easier, not harder, but perhaps that’s not possible.
Sara
*From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net> *Date: *Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM *To: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Turning this over to the GAC is indeed not conductive to efficient and goal-oriented problem solving, yet ICANN needs to also be careful not to intrude in what the GAC may view as the job of governments, i.e. regulating the powers of law enforcement and cross border jurisdiction.
Am 23.08.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Metalitz, Steven:
Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.)
If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed.
*[image: mage001]*
*Steven J. Metalitz *| *Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com
*Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP* | *www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
*THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS.** THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Sullivan *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without
extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Research conducted by Nielsen for ICANN earlier this year found that 66% of consumers had never tried to identify the creator of a website before. Of those who had, even once, tried to identify the creator of a website, only 5% claimed to have performed a WHOIS search even once. Source: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/phase2-data-tables-region-08jun16-e... I appreciate that you were discussing the awareness of WHOIS among domain name registrants, and not ordinary Internet users, however I would like to introduce this data because it would indicate that general awareness of the WHOIS service is low (and I am not aware of any more relevant studies which have been conducted on the matter of WHOIS). Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 5:57 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 4:57 PM From: susan@domaintools.com To: sbockey@godaddy.com gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Agree with SusanK. I know many registrants (individuals, corporations, etc) who are quite versed in Whois and the purpose of it. -Susan ~~~~ Susan Prosser VP, Customer Services DomainTools, LLC T: (206) 838-9060 E: susan@domaintools.com PGP: A2C4D2A4 On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> wrote: Fair and good points Steve and Volker. Just hoping the problem statement will make our jobs easier, not harder, but perhaps that’s not possible. Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Turning this over to the GAC is indeed not conductive to efficient and goal-oriented problem solving, yet ICANN needs to also be careful not to intrude in what the GAC may view as the job of governments, i.e. regulating the powers of law enforcement and cross border jurisdiction. Am 23.08.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.) If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed. mage001 Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: [202.355.7902](tel:202.355.7902) | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP | [www.msk.com](http://www.msk.com/) 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901) Fax.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851) Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901) Fax.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851) Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Sorry, no. This data is a red herring. We are discussion registrants, not "consumers." A relevant data set is a key factor in the probative value of data. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Aug 23, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> wrote: Research conducted by Nielsen for ICANN earlier this year found that 66% of consumers had never tried to identify the creator of a website before. Of those who had, even once, tried to identify the creator of a website, only 5% claimed to have performed a WHOIS search even once. Source: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/phase2-data-tables-region-08jun16-e... I appreciate that you were discussing the awareness of WHOIS among domain name registrants, and not ordinary Internet users, however I would like to introduce this data because it would indicate that general awareness of the WHOIS service is low (and I am not aware of any more relevant studies which have been conducted on the matter of WHOIS). Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 5:57 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 4:57 PM From: susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com> To: sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Agree with SusanK. I know many registrants (individuals, corporations, etc) who are quite versed in Whois and the purpose of it. -Susan ~~~~ Susan Prosser VP, Customer Services DomainTools, LLC T: (206) 838-9060 E: susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com> PGP: A2C4D2A4 On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>> wrote: Fair and good points Steve and Volker. Just hoping the problem statement will make our jobs easier, not harder, but perhaps that’s not possible. Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Turning this over to the GAC is indeed not conductive to efficient and goal-oriented problem solving, yet ICANN needs to also be careful not to intrude in what the GAC may view as the job of governments, i.e. regulating the powers of law enforcement and cross border jurisdiction. Am 23.08.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.) If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed. <image001.gif> Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902<tel:202.355.7902> | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Thanks Ayden, I agree on the consumers and the Whois Review team ran a short study on consumers knowledge of the Whois and received similar results. Consumers/internet users knowledge and registrants knowledge of the whois is not interchangeable. If you do not understand or learn how the whois works and you are a registrant you are at risk of losing your domain name. It is extremely important to managing a domain name registration. I think if we educate consumers/internet users on how to use Whois or RDS (in the future) it would be helpful to them. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 10:19 AM To: "Prosser, Susan" <susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com>> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Research conducted by Nielsen for ICANN earlier this year found that 66% of consumers had never tried to identify the creator of a website before. Of those who had, even once, tried to identify the creator of a website, only 5% claimed to have performed a WHOIS search even once. Source: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/phase2-data-tables-region-08jun16-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_reviews_cct_phase2-2Ddata-2Dtables-2Dregion-2D08jun16-2Den.pdf&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=jF-I00eNXqBm-8pjeQtbYPyug6A30csLvHFqh115cLI&s=aiIZQ-0broNcqBmLVa_xG662lL0FvHzFxgLWxRg0qDc&e=> I appreciate that you were discussing the awareness of WHOIS among domain name registrants, and not ordinary Internet users, however I would like to introduce this data because it would indicate that general awareness of the WHOIS service is low (and I am not aware of any more relevant studies which have been conducted on the matter of WHOIS). Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 5:57 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 4:57 PM From: susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com> To: sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Agree with SusanK. I know many registrants (individuals, corporations, etc) who are quite versed in Whois and the purpose of it. -Susan ~~~~ Susan Prosser VP, Customer Services DomainTools, LLC T: (206) 838-9060 E: susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com> PGP: A2C4D2A4 On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>> wrote: Fair and good points Steve and Volker. Just hoping the problem statement will make our jobs easier, not harder, but perhaps that’s not possible. Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Turning this over to the GAC is indeed not conductive to efficient and goal-oriented problem solving, yet ICANN needs to also be careful not to intrude in what the GAC may view as the job of governments, i.e. regulating the powers of law enforcement and cross border jurisdiction. Am 23.08.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.) If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed. [mage001] Steven J. Metalitz |Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902<tel:202.355.7902> | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP|www.msk.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.msk.com_&d=DQMGaQ&c=...> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=jF-I00eNXqBm-8pjeQtbYPyug6A30csLvHFqh115cLI&s=ZyIspEW1mc0RdEqdaAyWn2-Fi46zpASaXhU4UcP-Wq4&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=jF-I00eNXqBm-8pjeQtbYPyug6A30csLvHFqh115cLI&s=ZyIspEW1mc0RdEqdaAyWn2-Fi46zpASaXhU4UcP-Wq4&e=> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DQMGa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DQMGaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DQMGa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DQMGaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=jF-I00eNXqBm-8pjeQtbYPyug6A30csLvHFqh115cLI&s=ZyIspEW1mc0RdEqdaAyWn2-Fi46zpASaXhU4UcP-Wq4&e=>
If you do not understand or learn how the whois works and you are a registrant you are at risk of losing your domain name.
Knowledge/Use (or lack) of whois has no correlation to "losing your domain name" unless you mean the opposite, the existence/use of whois is often instrumental in allowing for domain hijacks/thefts.
extremely important to managing a domain name registration.
There is no management of domains you can do with whois - it's a 1-way pull readonly protocol. I _guess_ you're referring somehow to checking "ownership" details ? WHOIS is in no way needed for that - the authoritative place to do it is with your Registrar. Rob
At 5%, that translates into millions of consumers around the world using WHOIS info. According to estimates, there are over a billion online shoppers in the world. So how many have used WHOIS? 50 million? That is bigger than the populations of many medium-sized countries. (Canada only has 35 million.) Probably it’s more than have heard of ICANN, or of the Internet Society, etc.! We don’t really know, but it would seem to be a lot. It may be odd to say that “general awareness of the WHOIS service is low” if the absolute number is in the millions. BTW, Aiden, 5% is the lowest number to cite. The research study says it was 5% in 2016, but 8% in 2015. Among respondents in North American and Europe it was much higher -- 14% in 2015, and 11% in 2016. (page 126) All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 1:19 PM To: Prosser, Susan <susan@domaintools.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Research conducted by Nielsen for ICANN earlier this year found that 66% of consumers had never tried to identify the creator of a website before. Of those who had, even once, tried to identify the creator of a website, only 5% claimed to have performed a WHOIS search even once. Source: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/phase2-data-tables-region-08jun16-e... I appreciate that you were discussing the awareness of WHOIS among domain name registrants, and not ordinary Internet users, however I would like to introduce this data because it would indicate that general awareness of the WHOIS service is low (and I am not aware of any more relevant studies which have been conducted on the matter of WHOIS). Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 5:57 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 4:57 PM From: susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com> To: sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Agree with SusanK. I know many registrants (individuals, corporations, etc) who are quite versed in Whois and the purpose of it. -Susan ~~~~ Susan Prosser VP, Customer Services DomainTools, LLC T: (206) 838-9060 E: susan@domaintools.com<mailto:susan@domaintools.com> PGP: A2C4D2A4 On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>> wrote: Fair and good points Steve and Volker. Just hoping the problem statement will make our jobs easier, not harder, but perhaps that’s not possible. Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Turning this over to the GAC is indeed not conductive to efficient and goal-oriented problem solving, yet ICANN needs to also be careful not to intrude in what the GAC may view as the job of governments, i.e. regulating the powers of law enforcement and cross border jurisdiction. Am 23.08.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.) If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed. [mage001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902<tel:202.355.7902> | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Greg, I quoted the figure of 5% because it was from the most recent year of data. It was also consistent with the other figure that I cited of 66% - which is of global Internet users, also in 2016. I did not cherry pick numbers. I simply used the most recent, global data. As for your interpretation of the data set, that this translates into millions of individuals being aware of WHOIS, that might be the case or it might not be. We need to consider the margin of error, the fact that some people will answer in the affirmative to any question in a poll, and a range of other variables. There is no doubt that some people are using WHOIS and are aware it is out there. All that is debatable is the volume of them. Regards, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 7:45 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 6:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com To: icann@ferdeline.com,susan@domaintools.com gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org [At 5%, that translates into millions of consumers around the world using WHOIS info. According to estimates, there are over a billion online shoppers in the world. So how many have used WHOIS? 50 million? ] That is bigger than the populations of many medium-sized countries. (Canada only has 35 million.) Probably it’s more than have heard of ICANN, or of the Internet Society, etc.! We don’t really know, but it would seem to be a lot. It may be odd to say that “general awareness of the WHOIS service is low” if the absolute number is in the millions. BTW, Aiden, 5% is the lowest number to cite. The research study says it was 5% in 2016, but 8% in 2015. Among respondents in North American and Europe it was much higher -- 14% in 2015, and 11% in 2016. (page 126) All best, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 1:19 PM To: Prosser, Susan <susan@domaintools.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Research conducted by Nielsen for ICANN earlier this year found that 66% of consumers had never tried to identify the creator of a website before. Of those who had, even once, tried to identify the creator of a website, only 5% claimed to have performed a WHOIS search even once. Source: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/phase2-data-tables-region-08jun16-e... I appreciate that you were discussing the awareness of WHOIS among domain name registrants, and not ordinary Internet users, however I would like to introduce this data because it would indicate that general awareness of the WHOIS service is low (and I am not aware of any more relevant studies which have been conducted on the matter of WHOIS). Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 5:57 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 4:57 PM From: susan@domaintools.com To: sbockey@godaddy.com gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Agree with SusanK. I know many registrants (individuals, corporations, etc) who are quite versed in Whois and the purpose of it. -Susan ~~~~ Susan Prosser VP, Customer Services DomainTools, LLC T: (206) 838-9060 E: susan@domaintools.com PGP: A2C4D2A4 On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> wrote: Fair and good points Steve and Volker. Just hoping the problem statement will make our jobs easier, not harder, but perhaps that’s not possible. Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Turning this over to the GAC is indeed not conductive to efficient and goal-oriented problem solving, yet ICANN needs to also be careful not to intrude in what the GAC may view as the job of governments, i.e. regulating the powers of law enforcement and cross border jurisdiction. Am 23.08.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.) If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed. mage001 Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: [202.355.7902](tel:202.355.7902) | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP | [www.msk.com](http://www.msk.com/) 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901) Fax.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851) Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901) Fax.: [+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851](tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851) Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:51:55PM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
As for your interpretation of the data set, that this translates into millions of individuals being aware of WHOIS, that might be the case or it might not be. We need to consider the margin of error, the fact that some people will answer in the affirmative to any question in a poll, and a range of other variables. There is no doubt that some people are using WHOIS and are aware it is out there. All that is debatable is the volume of them.
I find it more than a little strange to invoke a study to prove a point when it supports one's own preferred conclusion, and then to question the same study's methodological assumptions and so on when the study is used as evidence in someone else's argument. But in any case, it seems to me there's a fallacy of relevance at work here, because "Internet users" and "domain name registrants" are clearly significantly different classes, and therefore may behave differently in the face of the same question. It doesn't seem to me that a survey of Internet users tells us anything at all about domain name registrants. Moreover, whether most people know about whois is also irrelevant. The question is whether the RDS is fit to the purposes people have for it, not whether most people are participants in that wanting. So I regard this quest for numbers of people who know about the whois as a distraction. It doesn't help us to make any decision, and it injects a false numeracy into the discussion ("These are the numbers we have, so we'll cite those.") Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Please see inline below in italicised bold. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 8:02 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 7:02 PM From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:51:55PM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
As for your interpretation of the data set, that this translates into millions of individuals being aware of WHOIS, that might be the case or it might not be. We need to consider the margin of error, the fact that some people will answer in the affirmative to any question in a poll, and a range of other variables. There is no doubt that some people are using WHOIS and are aware it is out there. All that is debatable is the volume of them.
I find it more than a little strange to invoke a study to prove a point when it supports one's own preferred conclusion, and then to question the same study's methodological assumptions and so on when the study is used as evidence in someone else's argument. I was responding to what was an interpretation of the statistical data. Before conclusions can be drawn from it, we would be best served considering how the data was gathered and what it could reasonably tell us. I do not believe I misrepresented the data in my original email, but I do consider it a stretch to extrapolate this data in the manner that Greg had done. But in any case, it seems to me there's a fallacy of relevance at work here, because "Internet users" and "domain name registrants" are clearly significantly different classes, and therefore may behave differently in the face of the same question. It doesn't seem to me that a survey of Internet users tells us anything at all about domain name registrants. This is a point that I made in my original email. Moreover, whether most people know about whois is also irrelevant. The question is whether the RDS is fit to the purposes people have for it, not whether most people are participants in that wanting. So I regard this quest for numbers of people who know about the whois as a distraction. It doesn't help us to make any decision, and it injects a false numeracy into the discussion ("These are the numbers we have, so we'll cite those.") It was an attempt to introduce empirical evidence into a discussion around whether or not there is familiarity with WHOIS. Linking to this study commissioned by ICANN was not intended to serve as a “distraction”. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:15:40PM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
This is a point that I made in my original email.
Since you seem to be admitting that the data is irrelevant to any point about registrants, I'm not sure why we're talking about it.
It was an attempt to introduce empirical evidence into a discussion around whether or not there is familiarity with WHOIS. Linking to this study commissioned by ICANN was not intended to serve as a “distraction”.
What you intended is no concern of mine. The point is that it _is_ a distraction, because whoever commissioned the study (also completely irrelevant), it is not a study about registrants' familiarity with this tool, and that's what we're discussing. There are lots of studies in the world that are not about domain name registrants, and none of them has anything to do with registrants' familiarity with whois either. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Never trust a stusdy you have not forged yourself... Am 23.08.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Andrew Sullivan:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:15:40PM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
This is a point that I made in my original email. Since you seem to be admitting that the data is irrelevant to any point about registrants, I'm not sure why we're talking about it.
It was an attempt to introduce empirical evidence into a discussion around whether or not there is familiarity with WHOIS. Linking to this study commissioned by ICANN was not intended to serve as a “distraction”.
What you intended is no concern of mine. The point is that it _is_ a distraction, because whoever commissioned the study (also completely irrelevant), it is not a study about registrants' familiarity with this tool, and that's what we're discussing. There are lots of studies in the world that are not about domain name registrants, and none of them has anything to do with registrants' familiarity with whois either.
Best regards,
A
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Research conducted by Nielsen for ICANN earlier this year found that 66% of consumers had _never_ tried to identify the creator of a website before. Of those who had, even once, tried to identify the creator of a website, only 5% claimed to have performed a WHOIS search even once. Source: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/phase2-data-tables-region-08jun16-e...
So, 5% of 34% i.e 1.7%, so 98.3% of "consumers" have never looked at whois
It may be odd to say that “general awareness of the WHOIS service is low” if the absolute number is in the millions.
Millions out of 10s of Billions is so statisticaclly low as to be for all intents and purposes practically zero
BTW, Aiden, 5% is the lowest number to cite. The research study says it was 5% in 2016, but 8% in 2015.
8% of 34% is still under 3% of the total ! Rob
I think we can count on our job being hard. I don’t think the problem statement will change that; all it does is express the challenge that we have. But if we are all willing to listen to one, respect differing positions and be creative, we can succeed. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 12:08 PM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Fair and good points Steve and Volker. Just hoping the problem statement will make our jobs easier, not harder, but perhaps that’s not possible. Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Turning this over to the GAC is indeed not conductive to efficient and goal-oriented problem solving, yet ICANN needs to also be careful not to intrude in what the GAC may view as the job of governments, i.e. regulating the powers of law enforcement and cross border jurisdiction. Am 23.08.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Metalitz, Steven: Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.) If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed. [mage001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Gac represents government, not the judiciary. In most countries there is a difference. I like mitigate in your list of verbs. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-23 11:39, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
Sara’s redline is more constrained but does it omit our main job, which is to resolve/manage/accommodate/mitigate the divergent and sometimes contradictory interests in RDS which the earlier draft rather succinctly identified? (I realize all those verbs are different, and not sure which is the best.)
If the “core problem” is really to “account for rules, regulations and laws” then should the job be turned over to the GAC which after all represents the sources and authoritative interpreters of those “rules, regulations and laws”? I doubt that would be a satisfactory way to proceed.
*image001*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: 202.355.7902 |met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>**
*Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
*_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Sullivan *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:44 AM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:42:17PM +0000, Sara Bockey wrote:
The problem statement should be explicit and to the point, without
extraneous wording or viewpoints. Accordingly, my proposed revisions are attached.
I think this is vastly better because it is more constrained.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Lots of thanks to Greg for his thorough review and constructive edits and also to Ayden for his timely responses. Because of the number of changes, I want to ask a favor of Greg: Would you please accept the redlined edits in the version distributed from this week’s meeting and then create a new redlined version (v2) with your suggested changes taking into consideration Ayden’s comments and the ones I make below. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:00 AM To: Greg Aaron Cc: RDS PDP WG Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet." With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” [Chuck Gomes] We discuss this in our meeting; there were those on both sides of this. Greg – in your new redline version I suggest you put “ever-evolving global Internet” in brackets and let’s see what others in the WG think. A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…” [Chuck Gomes] I will let Greg decide how he wants to deal with these suggestions. They seem okay to me although I am not sure what the difference is between an end-user and a user. Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM From: gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com> To: lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:lisa@corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks to the drafting team. My comments are as follows. First paragraph: the addition of “(domain name)” does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing. First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, “ever-evolving global Internet” is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.) Top of second paragraph: Add the words “a variety of other stakeholders’” so as to read: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system…” The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc. We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete. Second paragraph: “performant” is not a defined word in the English language; it’s more software developer slang. In a document like this, I suggest we use words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon. I think we are trying to say: “performs well”. Third paragraph: rather than “constituency” I think we mean and should use “set of stakeholders.” “Stakeholders” ties back to the text above. And at ICANN, “constituency” has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that. Third paragraph: Regarding this section: “This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication.” This formulation seems overly broad. While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a “safe environment for commerce and communication” on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data. So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed? I wonder if that sentence is needed at all. Third paragraph: “within the RDS”. Do you mean “that uses the RDS”? “Within the RDS” implies being embedded somehow. As always, use of the term “system” can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG “system” refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes “system” refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations. With best wishes, --Greg From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Dear all, Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call. Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting. Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call. Best, Lisa
Thanks Lisa and all thos whose work hard to produce this draft. I am sorry again not being able to attend yesterday's call. I promise to read the documents and revert ASAP if I have any comments. But from the responses I saw, I hope (actually not) there is some mistakes left behind I will find. ;) Le mer. 17 août 2016 à 07:35, Lisa Phifer <lisa@corecom.com> a écrit :
Dear all,
Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.
*Action item*: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.
Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Salutations - Regards @__f_f__ [image: --] FARELL FOLLY about.me/farell <https://about.me/farell?promo=email_sig&utm_source=email_sig&utm_medium=emai...>
participants (21)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Ayden Férdeline -
Deacon, Alex -
Elaine Pruis -
Farell Folly -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Aaron -
Greg Shatan -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Lisa Phifer -
Mark Svancarek -
Metalitz, Steven -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Prosser, Susan -
Rob Golding -
Sam Lanfranco -
Sara Bockey -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi -
Volker Greimann -
Winterfeldt, Brian J.