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

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Chuck,
I hope you are having (had) an easy trip. I have respectfully submitted 
that the order in which we evaluate key questions will matter a lot in 
our process ahead. While the Charter lists a number of of questions, I 
assume we have some ability to determine the best order for evaluating 
them.  The data protection construct gives us a good order for this 
evaluation -- and I appreciate our discussion regarding it.

Tx for circulating a proposed approach to a work plan and receiving 
comments.

Best regards,
Kathy


On 2/27/2016 5:47 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> 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/20160228/f0305e4c/attachment.html>