[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from Next-Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting - deep concerns

[Kathy Kleiman]

Chuck,
If I understand your responses to my responses correctly, the first step 
of the draft work plan approach will now be:

- what domain name registration data is collected and for what purpose?
*/[Chuck Gomes] /* First area of deliberation
=> if I understand your response, adding this bullet point to our work 
plan and starting here will work well. Starting with this question seems 
quite consistent with the mandate the Board assigned to our WG: "to 
define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to 
generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) registration data" (Final Report on 
Next-Generation gTLD Registration Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS, page 
1, paragraph 1)

- what specific laws and restrictions limit the re-use or secondary use 
of this domain name registration data?  (data gathering, legal analysis 
section)*/
[Chuck Gomes] /* This will happen in our deliberation on each possible 
requirement.
==>  Chuck, if we are collecting data about laws and their restrictions 
for each possible secondary use, then aren't we creating a large amount 
of duplication of effort? As we know, many registrars and an increasing 
number of registries operate in countries and with registrants in 
countries with data protection laws (EU, Japan, S. Korea, to name a 
few). The data protection laws impose frameworks for evaluating the 
re-use and secondary use of information. Understanding these laws and 
their limitations and restrictions /upfront /will enable us to better 
analyze and approach the overall issue of secondary uses ("possible 
requirements") -- create a prism for analysis of additional proposes 
uses -- and avoid a lot of duplication of effort.

- what additional uses would people like to use the domain name 
registration data and why?*/
[Chuck Gomes] /* First area of deliberation.
==> Now we are onto the issues of additional and secondary uses of the 
registration data - not by the registrars who collect it, but by many 
others. /This is certainly an area to which the EWG devoted a huge 
amount of time and resources./ And I think when we get to this point, 
their analysis of the worldwide community and how it would like to use 
Registrars' data will be very valuable. But this is a step that requires 
understanding other parts of the 11 "complex and inter-related 
questions" of the Draft Charter that you pointed out to me (top of page 
70 of the "Final Issue Report on a Next-Generation gTLD Registration 
Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS"). Thanks for pointing that out 
- and I am glad we are having this conversation of the order we might 
address these issues. I think it will save a lot of time in the end...

In addition, we will need to allocate time (a new bullet in  our work 
plan?) to analyze the risks to data collectors and data subjects 
(registrars and registrants) of making this data available to the users 
and for the purposes that secondary users would like. That's an entire 
risk analysis that the EWG did not have time or opportunity to undertake 
and to us falls this critical process.

- Outreach to the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and 
outreach to the greater Internet Community*/
[Chuck Gomes] /* We will do this multiple times during our work.
==>  Great!  Our work plan for phase 1 does not expressly include the 
broader community outreach at this pivotal early stage of our work 
(which is one to which broad input will provide important insight and 
information). A small edit to our work plan to add? Tx!

==> /Overall, I trust it is OK to a//dd a few more points to our draft 
work plan to better reflect the "complex and inter-related questions" in 
our Draft Charter, and to ensure that we don't leave out valuable steps 
in our planning or work. //I think that was the purpose of the "call to 
comments" on this early section of our work, and thank you for the 
opportunity to comment. /

==> Regarding wording, I would again respectfully request that we leave 
the term *"potential requirements"* for a later time. As the EWG pointed 
out, there are legitimate and illegitimate secondary uses of Whois data, 
legal and illegal ones. Lumping them all under "potential requirements" 
this early in our work seems both premature and misleading. As 
commenters said - it's loose wording, and with all of our work ahead, 
it's better not to be loose now. The EWG talked about "Users and 
Purposes" and that may be a good time for us to use that term as well. 
*"Potential Users and Potential Purposes" *might work too.

Best regards,
Kathy

On 2/26/2016 5:14 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Kathy,
>
> Let me make sure I understand what you are suggesting.  Are you 
> recommending that we add the responses that I made (the blue text 
> below)?  If so, that would be fine assuming the rest of the WG 
> supports that.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 25, 2016 10:55 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from 
> Next-Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting - deep concerns
>
> Hi Chuck,
> While I am pondering your other questions, let me send thoughts back 
> on the bullet points below. We seem to be in agreement, and have 
> received support on the list. Can we go ahead and add these bullet 
> points to the start "3. Review and discuss draft work plan"?   It will 
> continue our process of clarifying and defining our work ahead.
>
> To the outreach bullet point, it's a small but significant change to 
> the bullet point to include not only the SOs and ACs of ICANN, but the 
> larger Internet Community. If that's not controversial (and I don't 
> see why it would be as it's a good idea and a past recommendation of 
> the Whois Review Team), is there any problem in expressly including it?
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 2/25/2016 8:27 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>
>     For the draft work plan, section 3 below ("Review and discuss
>     draft work plan"), I would start with these opening bullet points:
>     - what domain name registration data is collected and for what
>     purpose? */[Chuck Gomes] /* First area of deliberation.
>     - what specific laws and restrictions limit the re-use or
>     secondary use of this domain name registration data?  (data
>     gathering, legal analysis section)*/[Chuck Gomes] /* This will
>     happen in our deliberation on each possible requirement.
>     - what additional uses would people like to use the domain name
>     registration data and why?*/[Chuck Gomes] /* First area of
>     deliberation.
>     - Outreach to the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees
>     and outreach to the greater Internet Community*/[Chuck Gomes]
>     /* We will do this multiple times during our work.
>     - Deliberations as to whether these additional uses are legal,
>     possible, optional -- and what the costs and benefits are of
>     providing this data for the secondary purposes that people are
>     seeking it.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /3. Review and discuss draft work plan approach/
>
>   * Bulk of work in phase 1 relates to recommending requirements for
>     Registration Directory Services
>   * Use EWG Final Report as starting point, as instructed by the ICANN
>     Board. Substantial public input was provided and incorporated by
>     this effort. Not restricted to the EWG Final Report, but an
>     important starting point.
>   * Develop a comprehensive list of possible requirement (without a
>     debate) as a first step. Deliberations on each possible
>     requirement will be the next step after developing this
>     comprehensive list, including reaching consensus on whether
>     requirements should be included or not.
>   * Outreach to SO/ACs is expected during various stages of the PDP,
>     periodically as needed. This outreach may take various forms,
>     formal, informal. There is a requirement for formal input at the
>     early phase of the process. ....
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160226/d1ba38ed/attachment.html>