[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from Next-Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting - deep concerns
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Mon Feb 29 04:48:58 UTC 2016
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>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list