[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon May 9 22:03:34 UTC 2016

If I might add to this discussion one important point. For some of us, 
the data collection, use and disclosure is and has always been contrary 
to data protection law and principles (eg OECD Guidelines).  To Start de 
novo *must not mean*
that existing data collection, including the many elements that have 
crept in over the years, is acceptable.  Forgive me for beating a dead 
horse, but the insistence on ignoring original purpose of the RDS data 
collection exercise, accepting the 2013 RAA as acceptable/legal, and 
placing consideration of "privacy" last does appear to be applying the 
fig leaf long after the flight from Eden.....(and apologies to 
non-english speakers for the mixed imagery).
On 16-05-09 5:05 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
> Thanks Marika for the explanation.
> And to be clear - we can’t rewrite the Charter.  What we can do is reflect the output of the data group in the document we are circulating for comment and, as Lisa suggested, incorporate into the work plan the recognition that the data group has identified that data collected goes beyond what is required by the 2013 RAA (registration data). And one of the tasks of the WG should be to look at ALL of the data, understand what of that needs to be collected and why, and then focus on the data that is critical to the deliberations of this WG.
> Holly
> On 9 May 2016, at 5:19 pm, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>> Hi Kathy,
>> As has been discussed earlier in the process, the idea behind the process
>> framework and the charter is that the PDP is expected to take a forward
>> looking / clean slate approach (which may also provide some further
>> insights into why the order of the questions was suggested as it is). This
>> is one of the reasons, as I understand it, that a review of what is
>> currently collected and why and whether it is subject to data protection
>> laws is not included as a requirement in the charter as the idea is that
>> the WG is expected to start with a clean slate and define requirements
>> based on its review of issues such as users/purposes, data elements,
>> privacy, etc. As you may have noted in the draft work plan, the leadership
>> team has proposed to group the three issues of user/purposes, data
>> elements and privacy together as it is clear that the consideration of
>> these topics will need to be done in an iterative way taking into account
>> the interlinkage of these topics.
>> Best regards,
>> Marika
>> On 09/05/16 06:12, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Kathy
>> Kleiman" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>> kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Chuck, Michele, Susan, David, and Lisa,
>>> I think Holly has hit the nail on the head. At the outset, and before
>>> moving forward to any additional questions, we should evaluate:
>>> 1) what data is collected?
>>> 2) why is this data collected?
>>> 3) is this data the subject of data protection laws?
>>> This is exactly the foundation and background that the subgroups have
>>> prepared for us - the Data Elements, Privacy law and Purpose subgroups.
>>> We now have the materials to enter into this analysis as a full WG in a
>>> constructive, informed and systematic way.
>>> Marika recently shared these questions in the link she sent around
>>> summarizing our previous comments/ suggestions. Members from a range of
>>> SOs and ACs raised the need for the WG to reorder the questions to allow
>>> consideration of data elements, privacy frameworks and "purpose" upfront
>>> and early on. As you may remember, Scott Hollenbeck kicked off the
>>> discussion and many others joined in.
>>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58730879/RDS-PDP-Phase1-P
>>> roposedWorkPlanChanges-16March2016.pdf.
>>> When we checked with members of Charter Team in Marrakech, they blessed
>>> the idea that we as a WG should choose our own order for the questions -
>>> as long as we cover them all, they would be happy.
>>> Accordingly, why would we launch into secondary purposes first?
>>> Rephrased, why would we consider all of the "possible requirements" of a
>>> directory service when we as a WG have not yet undertaken the basic
>>> analysis of what data is collected, for what primary purpose, and under
>>> what privacy laws and frameworks we should be analyzing the data?  This
>>> seems totally like putting the cart before the horse.
>>> Best,
>>> Kathy
>>> On 5/7/2016 4:22 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>>>> Thanks Lisa
>>>> What the data group has  been exploring is just what data is actually
>>>> collected by registries/registrars.
>>>> I realise that the original Charter questions were framed around gTLD
>>>> registration data - the ŒWhois¹ data that must be made public under the
>>>> 2013 RAA.  But what the data group has identified is that there is more
>>>> data in question than just the ŒWhois¹ data. Yet these questions are
>>>> framed around the gTLD data.
>>>> Somewhere, there should be a question - or something - that suggests
>>>> that the Charter questions should go further to at least consider what
>>>> data is collected and why, and whether it should be the subject of data
>>>> protections.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Holly
>>>> On 8 May 2016, at 2:57 am, Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> A reminder that PDP WG feedback if any on the attached early outreach
>>>>> message is due no later than tomorrow - Sunday 8 May 23.59 UTC.
>>>>> Best, Lisa
>>>>> At 12:07 PM 5/3/2016, Lisa Phifer wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> As agreed during today's WG call, attached please find a slightly
>>>>>> revised draft input template to solicit early input from ICANN SOs/ACs
>>>>>> and GNSO SG/Cs. This is the template discussed in today's WG call.
>>>>>> Remember, there will be many opportunities for community input
>>>>>> throughout this PDP. The attached input template is to be used to
>>>>>> initiate the early outreach required of every PDP to inform the WG at
>>>>>> the start of its work. The template is a tool used successfully by
>>>>>> other PDP WG's to solicit structured input, along with any additional
>>>>>> input each group wishes to provide.
>>>>>> WG member feedback on this draft input template is welcome: please
>>>>>> send any feedback to the entire WG list <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> no
>>>>>> later than Sunday 8 May 23.59 UTC.
>>>>>> Our goal is to send the final version of this template to initiate
>>>>>> early outreach next week.
>>>>>> Best, Lisa
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>> <RDS PDP - SO AC SG C Input Template - 2 May 2016
>>>>> rev.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160509/182d6ff8/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list