[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Updated: Mp3, Attendance, AC Chat for Next-Gen RDS PDP WG on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 06:00 UTC
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jan 19 18:24:00 UTC 2017
It is your inner Canadian coming out there Greg, doubtless a harbinger
of further agreement to come....:-D
SP
On 2017-01-19 12:35, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I never thought I would agree with Stephanie on a privacy-related
> matter.... 😂
>
> But I do this time.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion Stephanie.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Stephanie Perrin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2017 2:58 PM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Updated: Mp3,
> Attendance, AC Chat for Next-Gen RDS PDP WG on Wednesday, 18
> January 2017 at 06:00 UTC
>
> I will do my best to make the call next week, but am travelling so
> may not manage it. Since I am the one querying the suggestion
> that protecting the data and the names of the individuals under
> the rubric of privacy is a wee bit off base, believing instead
> that people should be accountable for what they are putting in
> their polling data, here is my view, for what it is worth.
>
> 1. ICANN is fundamentally an open, transparent multistakeholder
> organization where pdps are open to all. There is an expectation
> that there will be robust debate and that people will be
> accountable for the views they wish to express. IF a person
> wishes to watch what is happening and not participate, they can
> monitor and thereby not be forced to express a view.
> Participation in the working group should mean that one's
> expectations of privacy in terms of opinions expressed is very
> limited. I would like to hear the arguments for such an opinion,
> if anyone has advanced them.
>
> 2. In this respect, if an organization sends a representative to
> attend a pdp and they do not have the authority to speak for the
> organization without vetting/checking, they have a number of
> options: a) omit the survey b) fill it out in their own name with
> caveats that they do not represent the organization c) get the
> survey questions and consult on the answers. I don't really think
> it is acceptable for organizations to anonymously fill out the
> survey, just as I don't buy the privacy argument from individuals.
>
> 3. The data is useful to those of us who are trying to understand
> where people are coming from. As I have said numerous times, we
> all view these matters from our own perspectives and knowledge
> base. I am trying to understand the degree to which people still
> do not understand privacy concepts, which I think I can detect
> from their answers. (others may wonder why I still don't
> understand how the RDS works, fair enough says I! CHeck my data,
> it might help you detect necessary educational opportunities...)
> I am also interested in the variance across questions, cumulative
> totals per SG, etc etc).
>
> 4. At a rather fundamental level, data that is used by us even to
> form rough concepts of concensus should be accessible to all in my
> view. This is very controversial topic which has caused
> considerable conflict over the years, let us try to minimize any
> potential for later questions or distrust by ensuring all data is
> available.
>
> There are ways around this problem of disclosure vs non-disclosure.
>
> 1. Inform people that polling data will be available. Forwarned.
>
> 2. RElease data minus the name. However, folks will be guessing
> who is from what constituency, and frankly we must have the
> constituency data. Normally for disclosure of PI for people in
> groups we go by the rule of 4.....rarely are there 4 NCSG folks
> filling out the polls, so you can identify us anyway, this may be
> different for other groups. I think this one is a non-starter but
> there it is.
>
> 3. Seek consent. As discussed above, I don't think the privacy
> arguments hold water; it is bad policy to seek consent on
> something that you could not /should not protect in the first
> place. Also a non-starter in my view, but there it is.
>
> Again, I hope to make the call next week but wanted to start off
> this discussion on the list in case I don't make it.
>
> Cheers STephanie
>
> On 2017-01-18 10:45, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> For those of you who were unable to attend this meeting, I
> encourage you to listen to the MP3 recording and/or review the
> transcript as well as the notes that Marika sent right after
> the meeting. We made quite a lot of progress; we discussed
> all of the remaining proposed purposes for the collection of
> thin data and there were no objections from anyone on the call
> to the conclusion that each of the purposes are legitimate for
> the collection of thin data.
>
> The third purpose, where we started for this meeting, is
> Domain Name Certification. We spent quite a bit of time
> talking about this. For those who feel that you do not
> understand this purpose fully, at about 14:50 into the call we
> had what I thought was a very good discussion designed to make
> sure everyone understands Domain Name Certification, so I
> encourage you to at least listen to that portion and the
> discussion following where we discussed whether it was an
> acceptable purpose. You will note that some thick data
> elements were also mentioned but we did not make any
> conclusions regarding thick data.
>
> Once we finished our deliberation on Domain Name
> Certification, there was just minimal discussion on the other
> remaining purposes so you may not find the balance of the
> recording very informative.
>
> Near the very end of the recording we alerted everyone to an
> agenda topic we will have next week about whether raw poll
> data should be shared with the WG and, if so, in what way.
> Those not on the call may benefit from listening to that
> discussion in preparation for next week.
>
> Happy listening.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Nathalie Peregrine
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:57 AM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Updated: Mp3,
> Attendance, AC Chat for Next-Gen RDS PDP WG on Wednesday, 18
> January 2017 at 06:00 UTC
>
> *With updated apologies*
>
> *From: *"owner-gnso-secs at icann.org
> <mailto:owner-gnso-secs at icann.org>" <owner-gnso-secs at icann.org
> <mailto:owner-gnso-secs at icann.org>> on behalf of Nathalie
> Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 11:52 AM
> *To: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>"
> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *[gnso-secs] Mp3, Attendance, AC Chat for Next-Gen
> RDS PDP WG on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 06:00 UTC
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email
> and the MP3 recording below for the Next-Gen RDS PDP Working
> group call held on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 06:00 UTC.
>
> *MP3:*https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-nextgen-rds-pdp-18jan17-en.mp3[audio.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gnso-2Dnextgen-2Drds-2Dpdp-2D18jan17-2Den.mp3&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KzV067Eeyuj3JRSZjh52PCELr7QkhUBq7VIagMYGQHQ&s=uyVJrYZT_qdZJbfPUPpqgfDfWFEr8V_cPaLxcsC8WHg&e=>
>
> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on
> the GNSO Master Calendar page:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=DgMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=weT6ABypO2mbhE1dWs5uImJ38Mh2plfgTgH1L07rZf0&s=EHJpg8atZYvWGJ5XfS368jdC7F4jfuSw2xjKnh_5bn8&e=>
>
> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>
> Mailing list
> archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/>
>
> Wiki page:
> https://community.icann.org/x/tarDAw[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_tarDAw&d=DgMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=F8D7r-W_wECDv1_jEDzbEWNFadeWG_alTD0XBlxPtBQ&s=RaRFcjj5cgZxXRr3idDQZOPXm8sHAdt_QG2T3G_mqU8&e=>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nathalie
>
> ———————————————
>
> *_AC Chat Next-Gen RDS PDP WG Wednesday 18 January 2017_*
>
> Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the Next-Gen RDS PDP
> WG call on Wednesday 18 January 2017 at 06:00 UTC.
>
> Nathalie Peregrine:Meeting page:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_EbTDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=WjwIlN9HqKqst0hBUakd2-JJXpDPPFOkSb7qA5DRdFM&s=9uxit6N-giqXHRfYH-5VIR7I-CJjYrAxWqkj2PJDjGc&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_EbTDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=WjwIlN9HqKqst0hBUakd2-JJXpDPPFOkSb7qA5DRdFM&s=9uxit6N-giqXHRfYH-5VIR7I-CJjYrAxWqkj2PJDjGc&e=>
>
> Michele Neylon:good morning people
>
> Michele Neylon:it's good middle of the bloody night :)
>
> Chuck Gomes:Morning?!!
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:Good Afternoon ;-)
>
> Alex Deacon:Hi all...
>
> Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong:Bonjour à tous / hello to everyone
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Good morning all.
>
> Michele Neylon:MUTE yourselves please
>
> Fabricio Vayra:good morning
>
> Tapani Tarvainen:Decent hour in Finland, too
>
> Farell FOLLY (africa 2.0):Morning All
>
> Michele Neylon:6am is an hour
>
> Tapani Tarvainen:8am here
>
> Michele Neylon:I'm not sure if it's decent or desiarable
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):not thaat horrible - 9am
>
> Farell FOLLY (africa 2.0):6 am here !
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:Currently in Bangkok 1 PM
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:so not to bad
>
> Stephanie Perrin:1 am here. I am not at my perkiest I must
> admit.
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:So a silent Stephanie today? ;-)
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Not likely...just delayed, I suspect....:-)
>
> Marika Konings:no, I haven't seen anything
>
> Sam Lanfranco npoc/csih:Stephanie is probably quiet
> because it is -5C outside and the weather is freezing rain (-:
>
> Lisa Phifer:Actually, question 3 assessed level of support
> for several listed purposes, not just Domain Name Certification
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Yes Sam, if the power goes out again I may
> be extra quiet....
>
> Alex Deacon:1995 - earlier if you count the RSA days :)
>
> Fabricio Vayra:@Alex - Nice!
>
> Sam Lanfranco npoc/csih:Question: What percentage of DN
> Certificate Requests turn out to be bogus?
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):current WHOIS data is not 100% true ..
> should we assume that not all 100% are good?
>
> Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong:I need some clarification about the
> first question as iam newcomer in this WG ,Thanks my second do
> you have some resources for no-English speaker ?
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:or .se / .nu where there are no info in
> whois for private persons
>
> Lisa Phifer:@Geoff, with respect to thin data elements,
> which elements are consulted for this authentication?
>
> Michele Neylon:My current bugbear is a particular company
> who insists on sending us their requests
>
> Michele Neylon:not to our clients
>
> Daniel K. Nanghaka:The challenge with the WHOIS is that
> there is no appropriate verification method for the users -
> there should be a way to validate sensitive data
>
> Stephanie Perrin:How often do you need to authenticate for
> these certificates?
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:at least once per year
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Do you rely on what is in WHOIS, OR do you
> call the technical/administrative contact?
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:per domain/ certificate
>
> Stephanie Perrin:what data do you trust? IN other words,
> how do you verify the data?
>
> Michele Neylon:domain validated certs are the cheapest ones
>
> Michele Neylon:they're also the fastest ones to get issued
>
> Michele Neylon:the level of "trust" is negligible
>
> Stephanie Perrin:But what are they worth?
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - to whom?
>
> Stephanie Perrin:To anyone who is relying on the certificate....
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):hhmm .. and if the mailbox was
> compromised ?
>
> Michele Neylon:FYI - they're also used by valid users like me :)
>
> Michele Neylon:I'm using one on michele.blog
>
> Alex Deacon:You could argue that Domain Validation certs are
> good for encryption only. they provide zero value from an
> authentication/identity point of view.
>
> Stephanie Perrin:I would have no clue what I am using. I
> think I speak for most consumers....
>
> Michele Neylon:what Alex said
>
> Michele Neylon:they're a step up from a self-signed cert
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Alex, that is kind of where I was
> heading....
>
> Daniel K. Nanghaka:This is where Domain verification comes
> in strongly - and the Domain validated certificates should be
> placed in the page of the Domain to prove that the domain is
> validated. The Company should have a respective data handler
> who will be responsible for domain validation and certificate
> authentication.
>
> Michele Neylon:Daniel - which company?
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:Unsure how you will make that happen Daniel?
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):The company
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in some movies it was the name for one
> of the agencies
>
> Alex Deacon:@stephanie - it depends on the type of cert.
>
> Daniel K. Nanghaka:@Michele - the company that that owns the
> Domain
>
> Daniel K. Nanghaka:Yes, the biggest challenge is that many
> companies take these certificates for granted
>
> Michele Neylon:Daniel - what makes you think they're a
> company? these days a LOT of the domain validated certs are
> for individiuals not companies
>
> Michele
> Neylon:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__letsencrypt.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=WjwIlN9HqKqst0hBUakd2-JJXpDPPFOkSb7qA5DRdFM&s=gUMAlV9Le_Uk-WKSJISZI3A_tCUNIGZECo84Qr5k-w0&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__letsencrypt.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=WjwIlN9HqKqst0hBUakd2-JJXpDPPFOkSb7qA5DRdFM&s=gUMAlV9Le_Uk-WKSJISZI3A_tCUNIGZECo84Qr5k-w0&e=>
>
> Michele Neylon:see also
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__motherboard.vice.com_read_google-2Dwill-2Dsoon-2Dshame-2Dall-2Dwebsites-2Dthat-2Dare-2Dunencrypted-2Dchrome-2Dhttps&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=WjwIlN9HqKqst0hBUakd2-JJXpDPPFOkSb7qA5DRdFM&s=pFgFCnrUIsQEyD06VMwyJjHMCAjk5hpZrorKO9I0cCU&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__motherboard.vice.com_read_google-2Dwill-2Dsoon-2Dshame-2Dall-2Dwebsites-2Dthat-2Dare-2Dunencrypted-2Dchrome-2Dhttps&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=WjwIlN9HqKqst0hBUakd2-JJXpDPPFOkSb7qA5DRdFM&s=pFgFCnrUIsQEyD06VMwyJjHMCAjk5hpZrorKO9I0cCU&e=>
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):letsencrypt ... they relay on
> publicsuffix, for exumple and the latter uses whois ...
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*example
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the only other source of info ... is LEA
>
> Alex Deacon:@maxim - you lost me. what info does LEA have?
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Law Enforcement Agency
>
> Alex Deacon:i know what lea stands for....
>
> Stephanie Perrin:I must be missing something here. If I am
> a legitimate rep of a company requesting a cert, why could you
> not ask for a whole mess of non-publically available data,
> signed by the company, to validate my request?
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):current internet users will surely
> suffer (and services too ) if certificates are no more
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - because it's time consuming and a
> pain in the neck?
>
> Stephanie Perrin:If you are looking for a phone number is
> that part of thin data? I did not think so.
>
> Michele Neylon:it doesn't scale
>
> Alex Deacon:@stephanie - a CA needs a way to "bind"
> (associate) an org/user with a domain. WHOIS does this today.
>
> Michele Neylon:phone numbers are "thick"
>
> Stephanie Perrin:That is what I thought. So we are talking
> about thick data here. And if only some registrants want
> certs, then why should all registrants have to put their thick
> data in WHOIS?
>
> Lisa Phifer:Note that handout is now displayed, showing this
> purpose and related thin data elements
>
> Stephanie Perrin:So what percentage of registrations
> want/need certs?
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - see the link I posted above
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:Soon every active domains with a website
>
> Michele Neylon:what Benny said :)
>
> Stephanie Perrin:We are talking about a purpose for
> collection. I will certainly argue about disclosure. you are
> collecting for a valid purpose. We need to discuss how you
> are going to use and disclose it.
>
> Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong:@Maxim I need more information when
> you said the current internet user will sufer if we don't have
> more certifications
>
> Stephanie Perrin:As far as I can see though, you are not
> collecting any separate data elements solely for the purpose
> of domain certs. validation
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - in thin?
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Abdeldjalil lots of services redend
> on certificates ... e-mail , online banking e.t.c.
>
> Stephanie Perrin:certainly in thin, but even in thick...what
> new data elements are you looking for?
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - no new ones
>
> Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong:Thanks @Maxim
>
> Lisa Phifer:After we get rough consensus on purposes for
> collecting thin data, we'll move to Data Elements and examine
> the individual data elements needed by that purpose, and given
> that we can look at under what conditions that data should be
> disclosed for that purpose...
>
> Stephanie Perrin:I seem to be the only one quibbling
> here. I am not arguing about the importance of encryption, or
> certification of sites. I am quibbling about whether
> authenticators, who arguably ought to be trusted parties,
> should be harvesting this data off an open WHOIS. If this is
> what they are doing as part of their functions, they could be
> autheticated to seek the data at a deeper level.
>
> Lisa Phifer:@Sam, do study subjects not have any opportunity
> for anonymity, or does it depend on the study and the types of
> data involved?
>
> Stephanie Perrin:It depends on the university ethics
> protocols. Certainly in Canadian unis you would not be able
> to disclose the personal data, you would have to bind users to
> the same privacy commitements.
>
> Stephanie Perrin:ICANN would have to set a research protocol
> for this, that meets the highest standard, otherwise academic
> access could become one of those jurisdictional nightmares....
>
> Lisa Phifer:@Rod, you propose adding Name Servers and
> Registrar to the list of thin data elements for this purpose?
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Is it not the case that every time you need
> thick data, you absolutely have to have access to the thin
> data to get at it??
>
> Lisa Phifer:@Stephanie, yes, you need at least Domain Name
> to query any WHOIS data, but beyond that you may not need
> other thin data elements (dates, etc) for a given purpose
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - yes
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Michele
>
> Michele Neylon:the thin tells you where to find the thick
>
> Michele Neylon:(sort of)
>
> Michele Neylon:(and I can't believe I just wrote that and it
> made sense to me)
>
> Stephanie Perrin:It is indeed a worrying sign...
>
> Stephanie Perrin:We have been at this a full year, I would
> point out....
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Consumer protection is very limited. Yes
> it is a valid purpose. Disclosure is another matter...
>
> Sam Lanfranco npoc/csih:Q. Thin raw data from the polls,
> or Thick raw data from the polls? (-:
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):just add checkbox - I do want my name
> shown
>
> Tapani Tarvainen:Analyzing pdf is not impossible, it's just
> a bit less convenient than xls
>
> Stephanie Perrin:I think it would be interesting to see
> both. I want to look for contradictions in responses. I also
> want to look for aggregates.
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):NamesCon?
>
> Tapani Tarvainen:(having written a number of pdf-to-text
> thingies...)
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Could we add example of report as a
> header to survey? like after you fill this - it is going to
> look like this and that?
>
> Lisa Phifer:In short, we would need to get consent of all
> who responded
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):P.s: my IP address is useless ...
> giant NAT pool of the local ISP
>
> Michele Neylon:Stephanie is that you??
>
> Tapani Tarvainen:+1 Stephanie. Don't really see any privacy
> issue here.
>
> Michele Neylon:has someone hijacked her identity??
>
> Michele Neylon:/me ducks
>
> Lisa Phifer:@Maxim, generally not true of respondents taking
> survey from within corporate networks - in that case, IP is
> often static
>
> Stephanie Perrin:Sadly I may not be on the call next week,
> depending on travel schedule
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Lisa, agree - it depends
>
> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Bye all
>
> Benny / Nordreg AB:bye all
>
> Daniel K. Nanghaka:bye
>
> Patrick Lenihan:Thanks to Each and All!
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <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/20170119/aafa04ee/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list