[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Notes from RDS PDP WG Meeting - 30 May

Tue May 30 20:18:05 UTC 2017

Dear all,

Below please find notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting.

To recap action items from today's call:
https://community.icann.org/x/IMPRAw

.        Action Item: Nathalie Coupet and any other WG members who wish to
do so to propose to the WG list a new principle on proportionality for "thin
data." All WG members to comment on that proposed principle in advance of
next call.

.        Action Item: Staff to prepare poll confirming the two proposed WG
Agreements listed above (Q3 and Q5). All WG members to participate in poll
no later than COB Saturday 3 June.

.        Action Item: Staff to send a Doodle poll regarding this request to
change meeting slots with the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG at
ICANN59, moving our F2F meeting from 27 June to 28 June

Best regards,
Lisa

Notes RDS PDP WG Meeting - 30 May 2017:

These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through
the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript
and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and
are posted on the wiki here: 

1) Roll Call/SOI Updates

.        Attendance will be taken from AC

.        Please remember to state your name before speaking and remember to
mute your microphones when not speaking

.        SOI updates: none

2) Complete deliberation on the charter question: What steps should be taken
to control "thin data" access?

a) Review poll results - see
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078624/AnnotatedResults-
Poll-from-23MayCall.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1496045887000&api=v2>
AnnotatedResults-Poll-from-23MayCall.pdf

Q3) minimum data set of "thin data" elements

.        Guiding principle based on EWG principle #41

.        Most prefer or could live with option a):

.        "A minimum set of "thin data" elements must be accessible by
unauthenticated RDS users."

.        Is the word "minimum" really needed?

.        Does "minimum set" or "defined set" have other implications?

.        Noted that we still need to define the minimum set of data elements
needed

.        Proposed alternative redux: At least a defined set of "thin data"
elements must be accessible by unauthenticated RDS users.

Proposed WG Agreement (to be confirmed by poll): At least a defined set of
"thin data" elements must be accessible by unauthenticated RDS users.

Q5) & Q4) purposes for "thin data" access

.        Guiding principle based on EWG principle #45

.        Refer to comments 5-8 in poll results

.        Must the data elements have a stated purpose, or must the requestor
state a purpose when querying the data?

.        Note previous agreements: WG Agreement #2: Every "thin data"
element should have at least one legitimate purpose; and WG Agreement #3:
Every existing "thin data" element does have at least one legitimate purpose
for collection.

.        Most prefer or could live with option b): To deter misuse and
promote accountability, RDS policy must state purpose(s) for public access
to "thin data."

.        Even though this is not nominative data, the data could be
construed to be personal and therefore you need to specify purpose(s) for
collection and access - data collectors will be held accountable for using
data consistent with those purpose(s)

Proposed WG Agreement (to be confirmed by poll): "RDS policy must state
purpose(s) for public access to "thin data."

Q4) non-discriminatory "thin data" access

.        Guiding principle based on EWG principle #44

.        Note: Option a) results s/b 19 - 4 = 15 (typo)

.        Comments 1-4 pertain to the concept of providing non-discriminatory
access

.        What is intended by non-discriminatory access? Equal access? Access
to RDS services/data that doesn't differ by quantity, quality, in an unfair
manner that favors one requestor over another

.        This EWG principle was to discourage tiered access - that is, those
who pay more (or have more power) should not get more access (faster,
broader)

.        Does non-discriminatory access prevent anti-abuse measures to
slow/block requestors who are abusing the system or data?

.        Alternative proposal: "RDS access to "thin data" must be
non-discriminatory access for all permissible uses"

.        For consistency with other agreements that should probably be
"legitimate purposes" not permissible uses

.        Would it be helpful to add "from a policy perspective" to eliminate
the technical issue, that we have no control over, from the agreement?

.        How would access to "thin data" for legitimate purposes be
verified?

.        "RDS policies for access to "thin data" must be non-discriminatory
for all legitimate purposes" received support with some opposition

.        Defer discussion on this poll question until the leadership team
can propose a way forward on Q4

Q6) other principles for "thin data" access

.        Poll indicated no additional principles were needed at this time,
with one exception: a proposed principle on proportionality (see Coupet
comment)

.        Further explanation on "proportionality" as a principle on access
to "thin data": Thought it would be best to include this principle as soon
as possible, since it is central to the GDRP, and not wait until later

.        Possible principle? Data that is not absolutely necessary for a
query should not be shared

Action Item: Nathalie Coupet and any other WG members who wish to do so to
propose to the WG list a new principle on proportionality for "thin data."
All WG members to comment on that proposed principle in advance of next
call.

Action Item: Staff to prepare poll confirming the two proposed WG Agreements
listed above (Q3 and Q5). All WG members to participate in poll no later
than COB Saturday 3 June.

b) Proposal from Rod Rasmussen and Vaibhav Aggarwal on what "unreasonably
restrict legitimate access" means in Proposed WG Agreement #21:

There must be no RDS policies that prevent RDS operators from applying
operational controls such as rate limiting and CAPTCHA, provided that they
do not unreasonably restrict legitimate access."

.        Some progress made looking at current policy that has already been
implemented (current status quo)

.        Plan to identify other areas where application of operational
controls are done, to compare to how this might be applicable to RDS policy

.        Documentation available on similar issues within the ICANN space

Action Item: Rod Rasmussen and Vaibhav Aggarwal to complete action assigned
during 17 May call and distribute in advance of next WG call, so that WG may
reach closure on Proposed WG Agreement #21 as shown above.

3) Review poll results for Q2) Data of Record

.        Poll results show a modest preference for option b):
Data set that, at a given time, is asserted to match data as acquired at the
point of origin.

.        Deferred to next WG call

4) Updates

a) Legal review

.        Staff has been reaching out to experts to perform an independent
analysis of the WG's previously-developed questions on data protection and
privacy law application to RDS

.        Information requested included expected costs and timeframe for
delivery of answers to questions. Staff has already received some
information, and is awaiting more information, to be shared with the
leadership team, in order to select and engage experts to conduct this
analysis

.        There is advantage in using FY17 funds for this project, as some
funds are already available, and allows for further follow-up or additional
analysis using FY18 funds

.        Need to decide quickly to take advantage of FY17 funds, and also to
provide expert responses in advance of the WG's target for starting its
first initial report for Phase 1

.        Should a revision of the questions asked of the data protection
experts be done prior to sending to the independent experts?

.        In the short-term, the leadership team will coordinate bringing the
experts on board, and will communicate updates to the WG

b) ICANN59 planning

.        AC room poll to determine whether it would be acceptable to switch
ICANN59 F2F meeting slots with the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, at
their request

.        If agreed, instead of Tuesday am 27 June, the RDS PDP WG would meet
F2F Wednesday am 28 June

.        AC room poll indicated just one person would be negatively impacted
by this change of date

Action Item: Staff to send a Doodle poll regarding this request to change
meeting slots with the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG at ICANN59,
moving our F2F meeting from 27 June to 28 June

5) Confirm action items and proposed decision points

.        Proposed WG Agreement (to be confirmed by poll): At least a defined
set of "thin data" elements must be accessible by unauthenticated RDS users.

.        Proposed WG Agreement (to be confirmed by poll): "RDS policy must
state purpose(s) for public access to "thin data."

.        Action Item: Nathalie Coupet and any other WG members who wish to
do so to propose to the WG list a new principle on proportionality for "thin
data." All WG members to comment on that proposed principle in advance of
next call.

.        Action Item: Staff to prepare poll confirming the two proposed WG
Agreements listed above (Q3 and Q5). All WG members to participate in poll
no later than COB Saturday 3 June.

.        Action Item: Staff to send a Doodle poll regarding this request to
change meeting slots with the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG at
ICANN59, moving our F2F meeting from 27 June to 28 June

6) Confirm next meeting date: 6 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC

Meeting Materials (all posted at  <https://community.icann.org/x/IMPRAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/IMPRAw)

.
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDelibe
ration-WorkingDraft-24May2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1495644451204&a
pi=v2> KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-24May2017.pdf and
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/KeyConceptsDelibe
ration-WorkingDraft-24May2017.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1495644578000&
api=v2> doc 

.        23 May Call Poll Results -

.        PDF of Poll Questions:
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/Poll-from-23MayCa
ll.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1495601528000&api=v2>
Poll-from-23MayCall.pdf

.        Annotated Poll Results:
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078624/AnnotatedResults-
Poll-from-23MayCall.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1496045887000&api=v2>
AnnotatedResults-Poll-from-23MayCall.pdf (for display during call)

.        SurveyMonkey Summary Poll Results:
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078624/SummaryResults-Po
ll-from-23MayCall.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1495987229000&api=v2>
SummaryResults-Poll-from-23MayCall.pdf

.        SurveyMonkey Raw Data Poll Results:
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078624/RawDataResults-Po
ll-from-23MayCall.zip?version=1&modificationDate=1495987241000&api=v2>
RawDataResults-Poll-from-23MayCall.zip and
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078624/RawDataResults-Po
ll-from-23MayCall.xls?version=1&modificationDate=1495987428000&api=v2> XLS

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170530/96a31d5a/attachment-0001.html>