[At-Large] ARDS database (Was: Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013)

Mon Aug 5 02:39:05 UTC 2013

Hi Alan

No, you don't lack imagination.  This is exactly the debate we need to be having. (and it is what Michele rightly believes is necessary).  But first, we need to say the proposal is worth pursuing and then listing what our concerns are.

Holly
On 05/08/2013, at 11:31 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> This is certainly one of the more questionable aspects of the EWG proposal. Two design issues come to mind that both make it better and worse. First, because there is one logical ARDS database does not necessarily mean there is a single physical database. If fact it could be segmented in a number of ways. The data for different registries could be stored in different venues. Or, perhaps more intriguingly, the data itself could be scatters over several venues so that no single country could reconstruct the entire database. Of course several acting together could. In either case, the location of the portal which can re-create the entire ARDS database would be subject to its national laws.
> 
> Secondly, good design dictates that just as there are multiple root servers (and multiple incarnations of each), presumably the logical and physical ARDS database would nened to be replicated to ensure that there is not a single point of failure.
> 
> All of this makes it very difficult to imagine an implementation that is both robust and with guaranteed privacy.
> 
> But perhaps I lack the proper imagination.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 04/08/2013 08:13 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> I can provide one point for thoughts, that ALAC might think to include in
>> the feedback.
>> During the presentation, and in the text of the report, there is a
>> description of how to design access to data in a way that it will be
>> dependent on the rights the accessing entity has.
>> However, there is one entity that might gain full access to all data, and
>> this is the government of the country where the database will be physically
>> located.
>> I had a chat with Michele on this, and he assured me that this is one point
>> that came already out, and will be discussed to find an acceptable solution.
>> I have no clue about the dynamics of the WG, I am sure, knowing Carlton,
>> that our points have been expressed loudly, but maybe a little help from an
>> official ALAC statement can help.
>> Let's put it this way: other constituencies and stakeholder groups will not
>> be shy in making statements that will push further their opinion and needs,
>> beyond what was the acceptable consensus of the WG: why should ALAC avoid
>> providing feedback? Michele is absolutely right when he calls for further
>> input, he knows some will speak up anyway, it is fair if all do.
>> Elaborating on the localization of the database, that we know is an issue,
>> is there something we can suggest? We do not need to provide the technical
>> solution, but can we spell out the requirements for making sure that no
>> specific entity will be more equal than others?
>> Cheers,
>> Roberto
>> 
>> 
>> > -----Messaggio originale-----
>> > Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-
>> > bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Holly Raiche
>> > Inviato: domenica 4 agosto 2013 23:08
>> > A: At-Large Worldwide
>> > Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013
>> >
>> > Hi Carlton
>> >
>> > Thanks for this.
>> >
>> > My one concern about ALAC not developing its own input is that, at the
>> > GNSO meeting Evan and I attended (and where Michele presented), he
>> > specifically asked, indeed pleaded for feedback from everyone.
>> >
>> > I am sure that you will be taking the views that we have discussed to the
>> > EWG. But I think my question is whether it would not make sense to have
>> > official ALAC input on this particular proposal.  It is different enough
>> so that
>> > ALAC statements in the past are not applicable to this proposal.   And, as
>> the
>> > discussion between Garth, you, Evan, Rinalia and I showed in Durban, there
>> > are different views on the proposal within  ALAC.
>> >
>> > For example, should we give the many reforms to the RAA a chance to work
>> > first? Should compliance be left to the compliance area within ICANN or to
>> > this new proposed ARDS?  And what happens to the RAA requirements on
>> > verification if the ARDS takes over that function, as well as being the
>> > gatekeeper for access to data.  It is a new road with much to commend it
>> but,
>> > as our discussions showed, some real reservations, and some real
>> > differences even within ALAC.
>> >
>> > I trust you to reflect those differences, but worry that you don't have
>> official
>> > ALAC statements to support what you are saying.
>> >
>> > Just please keep us informed of ongoing discussions.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Holly
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 05/08/2013, at 6:23 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Holly:
>> > > I should think not; this was an advisory and in any event, we have
>> > > spoken often and endorsed the collection of the entire dataset as
>> > > defined in the specs.
>> > >
>> > > Regarding the EWG work, there was talk of placing an official ALAC
>> > > response to invitation for comments.  Since I'm a member of the EWG,
>> > > speaking aloud to myself might very well be considered just desserts
>> > > in some quarters and as such not to be encouraged. So I will exempt
>> myself
>> > from that process.
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > > -Carlton
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ==============================
>> > > Carlton A Samuels
>> > > Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> > > =============================
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Holly Raiche
>> > <h.raiche at internode.on.net>wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Carlton
>> > >>
>> > >> It doesn't look like they are looking for any input from anyone -
>> > >> except registrars. Am I right?
>> > >>
>> > >> And a related question - is ALAC making a statement of the EWG
>> > >> Initial Report.  I don't see anything on the policy page, but my
>> > >> understanding was that they were looking for feedback?
>> > >>
>> > >> Holly
>> > >> On 02/08/2013, at 2:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> See the details here:
>> > >>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-
>> > 31jul13-en.h
>> > >>> tm
>> > >>>
>> > >>> -Carlton
>> > >>>
>> > >>> ==============================
>> > >>> Carlton A Samuels
>> > >>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> > >>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> > >>> =============================
>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>> At-Large mailing list
>> > >>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> > >>>
>> > >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> At-Large mailing list
>> > >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> > >>
>> > >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> > >>
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > At-Large mailing list
>> > > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> > >
>> > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > At-Large mailing list
>> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> >
>> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> 
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org