[gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question

Mon Apr 25 16:11:51 UTC 2016

I would actually disagree. We discussed the use cases for data, 
accepting those current uses as by and large legitimate.  From a data 
protection perspective, it has been clear from the very beginning that 
many of the new purposes that registrant data were being put to, would 
not be permissible by law under the original purpose of WHOIS.  We never 
looked at the collection instrument, (RAA) it was accepted as fait 
accompli.  We did not go over the extensive collection of documents that 
we had received from the DPAs.  So a thorough, tabula rasa discussion of 
the purpose of collection of registrant data is in order, in my view.  
And SAC 055 agrees with that view.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-04-25 17:34, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> ...and FWIW, the Review Team's final report was a very important 
> substrate upon which the EWG's work was advanced.
>
> The EWG spent an inordinate amount of time resolving the question as 
> to whether there was a purposeful need for registration data and if 
> so, what should be collected, the standards for collection, how it 
> should be curated and the safeguards, why and how it should be 
> published and the mechanisms for publication.
>
> I say again, it would be a sign of malignancy to embrace any attempt 
> to bounce the rubble here. If there is new and original insight of 
> value to the end game, let it be heard.
>
> Otherwise, enough good minds and treasure are exhausted answering 
> those questions.
>
> Lets get on with it.
>
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
> =============================
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Marika and All,
>     I think my concerns run to (iii) and (v) below as the limitations
>     of certain documents (especially ones people refer to often) have
>     definitely been a part of the discussion of this subgroup.  I
>     would note that certain document in the summaries already contain
>     some red highlighted notes, and I would like to request that
>     similar notes be added *within our summary* of the Whois Review
>     Team Final Report and within our subgroup report to the full WG.
>     Here are the bullet points you requested (tx for asking!):
>
>     - The Whois Review Team was///expressly barred //from looking at
>     the purpose of the Whois system/. It was allowed to look only at
>     ICANN's "existing policy relating to WHOIS" per the Affirmation of
>     Commitments signed between US Department of Commerce and ICANN in
>     2009.
>
>     - Even within that scope, the Whois Review Team Final Report
>     expressly recommended protection of privacy for commercial
>     companies, noncommercial organizations and individuals (finding
>     that each shared with us legal and legitimate reasons for privacy
>     including as-yet-unannounced mergers, new movie names, unpopular
>     religious, ethnic and policy views, etc).
>
>     - The Whois Review Team Final Report advised ICANN to work towards
>     a standard of "contactability" /- reaching the registrant by
>     //some //means rather than //all means /- which we wrote as:
>     "ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of
>     WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups Substantial
>     Failure and Full Failure (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy
>     Study, 2009/10..." p. 87.
>
>     We were tasked with conveying to the full WG our understanding of
>     "purpose" as guided by these documents - and these notes add key
>     insights and understandings to it (as we shared many times in
>     presenting this Final Report to ICANN in 2012).
>
>     Best,
>     Kathy
>
>
>     On 4/24/2016 8:35 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
>>     Kathy, all, as a reminder, each sub-team is expected to answer the
>>     following questions in relation to the work it has undertaken:
>>
>>     (i) Did this input inventory produce any insights to inform the WG¹s work
>>     plan?
>>     (ii) Which inputs are likely to be the most important [relevant] during WG
>>     deliberations and why?
>>     (iii) Which inputs, if any, generated the most discussion within the small
>>     team?
>>     (iv) Which inputs may be obsolete or super-ceded by subsequent work?
>>     (v) What input gaps, if any, may need to be addressed later?
>>     (vi) Other key takeaways from this input inventory the team wishes to
>>     share with the WG
>>
>>
>>     Your concern appears to fall under item v? If you would like to summarise
>>     your concerns in a few bullets, the sub-team can maybe use these to start
>>     building out the responses to the questions?
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>
>>     Marika
>>
>>     On 22/04/16 15:13,"gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Kathy
>>     Kleiman"
>>     <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman>  <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>>     kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>     <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@kathykleiman.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>     Hi Susan and Lisa,
>>>     I have a question (which certainly does not have to be answered on a
>>>     Friday afternoon), but some deep concerns have been raised on this list
>>>     by people who helped created various documents and reports that we are
>>>     now evaluating. For example, I raised the fact that it was completely
>>>     out of scope for the Whois Review Team to evaluate the data collected in
>>>     Whois and the primary purpose for which it was created.  By the
>>>     Affirmation of Commitments, we had to deal with the Whois system as it
>>>     existed (and had been passed to ICANN from the National Science
>>>     Foundation).
>>>
>>>     We could not and did not address or deal with primary purpose. I think
>>>     this limitation and fact is critical to the understanding and evaluation
>>>     of the Whois Review Team report, especially as it applies to our
>>>     question of "purpose."
>>>
>>>     How can this point be added to Whois Review Team Final Report summary -
>>>     perhaps in Additional Information? -- and to our discussion?
>>>
>>>     Tx,
>>>     Kathy
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list
>>>     gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org
>>>     <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org>
>>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list
>     gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose/attachments/20160425/a1433c52/attachment-0001.html>