[gnso-rds-pdp-data] Moving Things Along .. Next Steps

[Holly Raiche]

Thanks for this - it will give shape to our WG’s discussions.

First, though, could we agree on the mission of this group - to be clear about what we are supposed to be doing - or not.

My understanding was that our first task is simply to identify the data that is collected by registries and registrars, and why it is collected.

My nomination for one of the ‘top five’ documents is SAC 54.  The reason is that it lists all of the data (not just the ‘whois’ data required under the RAA, but the data used for traffic management, etc, etc). And each data element is listed under a general heading of how the data element is used - operational, etc.  My other picks for the ‘top 5’ would include the Whoise Registrant Study, the Whois Task Force Final Report, and perhaps as or more importantly, the  EWG Final report, since that team had to go through a very similar exercise.

At this stage, I am not sure that the range of documents on data protection should be in the Top 5 unless the task of this group is to also identify those data elements that would amount to ‘personal information’ under data protection laws and therefore, be the subject of discussion on the data elements that should/should not be publicly available.

Hope that helps the discussion

Holly


On 20 Apr 2016, at 12:18 am, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> All
> 
> Thanks for all your hard work over the last few weeks. You’ve all been fantastic and it is appreciated.
> 
> So what now?
> 
> On tomorrow’s call we’re going to start moving towards bringing back the input from the subgroups to the main group, so if you could consider the following it would be helpful:
> 
> During the 20th April RDS PDP WG call, each team will be asked to report on its progress and share preliminary thoughts about the questions posed during last week’s WG call. To kick-start this discussion, I ask that each of you try to answer this question:
> 
> Which “top 5" inputs summarised by this team are likely to be the most helpful to this PDP and why?
> 
> For example, does the input define potential requirements that this WG should take into consideration during phase 1 of this PDP? 
> 
> Does the input identify dependencies that will shape our work plan?
> 
> Our team will have an opportunity to share initial answers during the WG call. 
> 
> Please reply to this list today with your own initial thoughts so that we can prepare to contribute to discussion during the WG call. 
> 
> We will not be expected to have a team-agreed answer this week, but we need to at least begin this discussion.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michele
> 
> 
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://ceo.hosting/ 
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-data mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-data at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-data