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

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon May 9 22:46:01 UTC 2016

Thanks Chuck

As long as the WG does ask the larger questions about the data we are talking about, I”m happy to proceed.  My concern about the issues paper being distributed is that the way it is framed, it is focussed on just RDS and doesn’t ask for comments outside of that context - so we won’t receive any answers that go beyond that.  As long as the WG realises that is what we are doing, and the WG is not confined to just RDS data, I’m happy


On 10 May 2016, at 8:33 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Holly,
> I don't think it would be appropriate to ' reflect the output of the data group ' in the outreach message.  First of all, it is not output from the full WG.  Second, if we did that for the data group, we would also have to do it for the purpose and privacy groups.  
> Adjusting the work plan is certainly a possibility as long as the WG agrees with the adjustments.
> It seems to me that your last suggestion will be part of our deliberation on possible requirements.  I assume that in our development of a list of 'possible requirements' we will include as many data elements as possible including those that many think should not be collected.  Then as a full WG we will debate whether they should be collected, stored, etc. and try to reach a consensus position on each one.
> Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 5:06 PM
> To: Marika Konings
> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions
> 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-Pha
>>> se1-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

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