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

Tue Apr 26 22:58:22 UTC 2016

With regard to the RAA as well as registry agreements with gTLD registries, one of the possible outcomes of this WG is the recommendation of consensus policies. As I think many of you know, gTLD registries and registrars are required in their agreements to implement consensus policies approved by the Board so the consensus policies would become a requirement in the applicable agreements.

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:01 PM
To: Stephanie Perrin; gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question

Hi Stephanie,

I disagree that we accepted the RAA as fait accompli.  I think the whole EWG team spent many hours discussing any view point in reference to registration data purpose, collection and display.  We also reviewed any document that was brought to our attention from DPA's or Article 29 WP.  We may not have agreed on the interpretation and meaning of those documents but we discussed data collection and privacy more than any other topic since it was so crucial to our work.

Best,
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM
To: "gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question

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<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman>

Kathy Kleiman"<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@kathykleiman.com>

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=>

_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=>

_______________________________________________

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose/attachments/20160426/abd3efa8/attachment-0001.html>