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

Wed Apr 27 00:36:56 UTC 2016

Actually Steph, we made extensive use of RAA 2013 in one of the EWG
subteams I worked.

Lack of user identification, authentication  and access control was
fingered as major disabilities of the existing WHOIS protocol. Scott
[Hallenbeck], Lanre [Ajayi] and myself were members of the subteam (if
memory serves it was G) that examined all the data elements described in
the RAA 2013 WHOIS dataset from an access perspective, identify their
source[s] and classified them for sensitivity to data protection rules.

That outcome was the basis for recommending the RDAP - then in final
preparatory stage by the WEIRDS WG of the IETF - as fit and proper vehicle
for processing registration data.

Another EWG subteam (could have been D with Michele on it) examined the RAA
WHOIS dataset from a collection perspective + added some elements not
described therein but which we know were generated in the course of the
user/registrar transaction. Scott and myself then mapped the elements from
collection perspective against those from the access perspective in an
effort to harmonize elements, all under colour of data protection rules to
decide the elements that would be gated for access.

These were fairly detailed pieces of work and I kept the worksheets.  So
no, I cannot agree we never examined the RAA 2013.

Best,
-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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>
> 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" <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>> kathy at kathykleiman.com> <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 listgnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.orghttps://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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-purpose at icann.orghttps://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/20160426/a4e700c2/attachment.html>