[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from today's meeting
Olévié Kouami
olivierkouami at gmail.com
Wed Dec 21 12:06:25 UTC 2016
Thank you so much Lisa.
I'll follow-up.
Warm regards
-Olévié-
2016-12-21 8:31 GMT+00:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:
> Morning,
>
> Thanks Lisa for these notes.
>
> I apologize for not have been able to attend.
>
> Will go through the actions items
>
> Best Regards
> @__f_f__
> about.me/farell
> ________________________________.
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
> Le 21 déc. 2016 08:09, "Lisa Phifer" <lisa at corecom.com> a écrit :
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Please find below the notes and action items from today's meeting. Please
>> note that our next WG call will be on 10 January.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Lisa
>>
>>
>>
>> *RDS PDP WG Meeting - 21 December 2016 *
>>
>> *These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate
>> through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the
>> transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided
>> separately and are posted on the wiki at:
>> https://community.icann.org/x/i6TDAw <https://community.icann.org/x/i6TDAw>
>> 1. Roll call / SOI*
>>
>> - Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect
>> - Please remember to keep your SOIs up to date
>>
>>
>> *2. Review poll results *
>>
>> - Refer to poll results posted at https://community.icann.org/x/i6TDAw
>> - Result Summary: Option (b) had greatest support, followed by
>> options (a) and (e). Just two respondents agreed with option (c) – no
>> limitation by purpose, and two respondents stated that their answers
>> differed for subsets of thin data elements. No support for option (d) –
>> eliminating access to “thin data” entirely.
>> - Consideration of poll results as a guide to find a productive path
>> forward for deliberations
>> - 90% of respondents through purpose should play some kind of role in
>> policy for "thin data" - strong indication the WG should consider
>> legitimate/illegitmate purposes. Why shouldn't policy take purpose into
>> consideration?
>> - Possible reasons: cost and effort involved in checking and
>> enforcing purpose, limited benefit in return for that cost; not sure we can
>> prevent sharing data after it was taken from the system; extra layers of
>> access control may not be warranted for minimal data included in thin data
>> - Reactions: May want to separate anonymous access from
>> identification or authentication for access to thin data - may not want to
>> allow anonymous access? Privacy policies may require authentication but
>> that may lead to logging access which may not be desirable
>> - Is the answer for thin data different than for other registration
>> data? Purposes for thin data may be more technical, may not require PII,
>> may pose less risk of abuse (and be dealt with using rate limiting, etc)
>> because thin data includes few elements - so why should it be hidden? There
>> are purpose(s) for thin data but access shouldn't be limited
>> - The language used in the poll questions may have led to results
>> that are farther apart than we really are - I didn't find options
>> satisfactory so I wrote option (e) to include anonymous access without
>> declaring a purpose. The wording implied access controls to check purpose,
>> which is why (e) is closer to (c) than (a).
>> - Re: "except for illegitimate purposes" - if someone does bad
>> things, their access can be blocked - but what does that cost?
>> - Two of the thin data elements are already accessible anonymously -
>> name servers, domain name - so the set of thin data elements you might
>> control access to is very small
>> - How hard is it to authenticate requestors? Really hard for today's
>> WHOIS or an open system
>> - Even with this limited number of responses, we have opposing views
>> about whether purpose should play an inclusive or exclusive role in “thin
>> data” policy. But further deliberation on specific purpose(s) and thin data
>> elements may uncover common ground.
>> - We may be stumbling a bit over possible implementations when trying
>> to visualize impact of potential policy requirements. For example, captive
>> portal pages often offer both anonymous Internet access and authenticated
>> access to more network resources – it is possible to implement both kinds
>> of policies. While we need to consider whether implementation of potential
>> policies is feasible, policy should drive implementation not the other way
>> around
>>
>>
>> *3. Continue deliberation on question 2.1, focusing on thin data*
>>
>> - Is there anyone who thinks we should not consider purpose at all?
>> - *Agreement: Concluding that purpose is useful to consider further
>> (without implying authentication, disclosure, or access control)..*
>> - Refer to handout posted at https://community.icann.org/x/
>> <https://community.icann.org/x/i6TDAw> i6TDAw
>> <https://community.icann.org/x/i6TDAw>
>> - What is the purpose of collecting thin data elements? Specifically:
>> - What is the purpose of collecting the domain name's Sponsoring
>> Registrar? It tells the registrant who is responsible for their domain name
>> (but see note about Resellers below), required by policy to help facilitate
>> registrar to registrar transfers; see also EWG pg 129-132 for purposes of
>> any field
>> - There's also a contractual line through the reseller to the
>> registrar; may have an optional Reseller field for registrars who wish to
>> avail themselves of it
>> - What is the purpose of collecting the domain name registration's
>> Status(es)?
>> - Could put "thin data" elements into a few categories - (1)
>> Registrar/URL, (2) operational data - Name Servers, (3) rest are metadata
>> about the domain registration such as dates, status
>> - Note that many thin data elements are not "collected" per se - the
>> fields are populated but from the RDS/WHOIS perspective we refer to
>> collection
>> - *Agreement that for all thin data elements, there is at least one
>> purpose for collection*
>> - Referring to EWG report pages 129-131, the thin data elements are
>> listed by purpose - are there comments on the purposes listed for "thin
>> data" elements?
>> - Noted that purposes listed by EWG were not comprehensive - but they
>> were recommended as "permissible"
>>
>>
>> *Action:* Staff to launch poll to confirm two main points of agreement
>> and allow those not on call to weigh in; poll to remain open through the
>> holidays with results aggregated for use in next WG call 10 January
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *4. Confirm next meeting date: Tuesday 10 January 2017 at 17.00 UTC *
>> *Meeting Materials: * https://community.icann.org/x/i6TDAw
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
--
*Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI*
*Président/CEO de l'INTIC4DEV (Institut des TIC pour le développement) **
http://www.intic4dev.org/*
Membre du Conseil d'Administration du FOSSFA
*Eminent National Expert for the World Summit Award
(http://www.wsis-award.org <http://www.wsis-award.org>) *
*Secrétaire Général de l'ESTETIC - Association Togolaise des
professionnels des TIC (http://www.estetic.tg <http://www.estetic.tg>)*
*ICANN-GNSO-NCSG-NPOC-ExCom (http://www.npoc.org/ <http://www.npoc.org/>)
**ICANN
- Fellow & Alumni (http://www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>) - Membre de
Internet Society (http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org>)-**Membre
fondateur du RIK-Togo (Réseau Interprofessionnel du Karité au Togo) *(
http://www.globalshea.com)
*Skype : olevie1 FaceBook : @olivier.kouami.7 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé –
Togo*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20161221/d035f6be/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list