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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Kathy,

I want to point out that a draft work plan has not been provided  yet.  We just provided a proposed approach to a work plan. The Leadership Team has a draft work plan just about ready to send but we wanted to get feedback on the approach first.  With that understanding, I added some additional responses below.

Chuck

From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:34 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

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)
[Chuck Gomes] Let’s consider this after we send out the draft work plan.


- 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.
[Chuck Gomes] I sure hope not.  As chair I hope we can minimize duplication of efforts except where more work is needed.


- 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.
[Chuck Gomes] One of the 11 questions specifically addresses risk; I think it is the next to last one but do not have them in front of me at the moment as I am in an airport as I write this.


- 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 add 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.
[Chuck Gomes] Let’s address this when we discuss the draft work plan.


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<mailto: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/20160227/7a71a065/attachment.html>