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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon May 9 23:53:09 UTC 2016

It seems to me that framing (or attempting to frame) certain purposes as
"primary" and others as "secondary" is also putting the cart before the
horse.  We would first need to discuss whether the concept of "primary" and
"secondary" purposes is valid, what the utility and purpose of such a
classification is, and whether it is relevant to our work.  We would need
to consider if there are other classifications within that system that make
sense ("tertiary" purposes), and if there are other ways to classify
purposes that make more sense, and should be used instead of or alongside
this classification system.

If we went any further after that discussion (and I'm not assuming we will
or that we won't), we'd have to look at whether and to what extent such
categories have a tendency to be outcome-determinative, and if that
tendency is inappropriate or prejudicial; if so, we would need to control
for that.  After that, we'd have to decide if and how we might use the
concept of "primary" and "secondary" purposes.

If we do decide to use the concept, we would then have to set it aside,
because we would need to have a full list of purposes to "classify." We
would then proceed to identify all potential purposes (as we have set out
to do).  Then and only then (and only if we adopted the "primary" and
"secondary" purpose rubric), would we consider which if any of the
identified purposes were "primary" and which if any were "secondary."

As such, I think it is important that we do not launch into a discussion of
"primary" and "secondary" purposes until we work our way there (or not
there) as discussed above.  Classification systems have a tendency to
prejudice discussion and evaluation, and I think it's important to avoid


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>

> 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-ProposedWorkPlanChanges-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 ‘Whois’ 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 ‘Whois’ 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160509/d34550d6/attachment.html>

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