<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Thanks Lisa! <br>
Stephanie<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-03-20 16:12, Lisa Phifer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6.2.3.4.2.20160320134944.0865ae20@mail.corecom.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hundreds of links to archived WHOIS policy work going back to 2001
can be
found at the GNSO's website here:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/archive"
eudora="autourl">
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/archive<br>
<br>
</a>The WHOIS 2007 Task Force landing page is linked to that
archival
page:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2007-03-16-en"
eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2007-03-16-en</a><br>
<br>
That landing page includes a link leading to over 260 public
comment
submissions. When reading, just bear in mind that comments made a
decade
ago may no longer reflect the commenter's current thoughts or
related
laws and policies.<br>
<br>
GNSO WHOIS studies launched in response to the 2007 WHOIS TF
report can
also be reached throught the GNSO's archival page, with links to
study
RFCs, draft/final reports, recorded researcher presentations, and
public
comments all linked to this WHOIS studies landing page:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/whois/studies"
eudora="autourl">
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/whois/studies<br>
<br>
</a>Happy reading,<br>
Lisa<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 01:29 PM 3/20/2016, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Thanks Lisa and
thanks to Ayden
for his advanced search skills which yielded results! I
hesitate to
ask, but I want to see all the comments to the earlier WHOIS
studies and
task forces as well....and I cannot find them in the Archives.
Can
we please have these things pulled up? I understand that at
least
in theory the questions we have been handed are supposed to be a
distillation of earlier work, but I would certainly like to read
all the
earlier work. As long as we are going to go at this for five
years,
we might as well get informed....<br>
Kind regards, <br>
Stephanie<br>
<br>
On 2016-03-20 14:08, Lisa Phifer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Thanks Stephanie.<br>
<br>
As you found, the HTML version of the 2007 WHOIS TF's final
report is
indeed the official version (
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-12mar07.htm"
eudora="autourl">
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-12mar07.htm</a>
). I will add the English PDF printed at the time of the
report's
submission (thanks Ayden!) to this WG's wiki background
materials page
for ease of printing.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" name="_Ref420727775"></a>Please also
note the RDS PDP Issue Report's
Section 3.2.2, WHOIS Task Force Final Report (2007), which
concludes:<br>
<br>
<b>The final report of this [2007 WHOIS] Task Force provides
an excellent
source of information for learning the types of data
collected and the
purposes of data collection. However, the GNSO did <i>not </i>adopt
the
Task Force proposals. Instead, the GNSO recommended pursuing
formal,
targeted studies to generate empirical data to inform future
policy
discussions.<br>
<br>
</b>As you highlighted below, it is this RDS PDP WG which is
now tasked
with redefining purpose.<br>
<br>
This was done because the 2007 task force - along with prior
and
subsequent GNSO efforts - could not reach consensus on policy
reforms
that hinge upon this question of purpose. Following further
analysis by
the 2012 WHOIS RT and SSAC in SAC055, the board requested this
RDS PDP to
take a different, more structured approach to help this WG
achieve
consensus, decomposing this complex issue into component
questions that
all reflect this WG's answer to that fundamental question of
purpose.<br>
<br>
Best, Lisa<br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:09 PM 3/19/2016, Stephanie Perrin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Thanks very much
for these
materials Lisa. Please let me reiterate a point that I
guess has
not registered yet. The first question we have to ask is
"what
is the purpose of collecting, using, storing, and disclosing
registration
data? If we agree on the narrow definition that was defined
in the
2007 WHOIS task force report, then many of the current uses,
as has been
pointed out by the global data commissioners repeatedly, are
not
legitimate. So lets agree on the purpose of data collection
first.
I am deeply concerned about the discussion of
"requirements". Here is the 2007 definition:<br>
<i>The GNSO Council recommends that the WHOIS task force use
the
following definition: "The purpose of the gTLD WHOIS
service is to
provide information sufficient to contact a responsible
party for a
particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably
pass on data to
a party who can resolve, issues related to the
configuration of the
records associated with the domain name within a DNS name
server."
as a working definition to allow the task force to proceed
on terms of
reference (2), (3), and (4)<br>
<br>
</i>Note: the ICANN wiki says this is what we are doing:<br>
" The <b>Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory
Services to
Replace Whois Policy Development Process Working Group</b>
(RDS-PDP-WG)
has been established to redefine the purpose of gTLD
registration data
and to consider how to safeguard this data. It is also
tasked with
proposing a model for gTLD registration directory services
that will
address accuracy, privacy, and access issues. "<br>
If we are redefining the purpose of gTLD registration data,
we should
address that question first.<br>
cheers Stephanie<br>
<br>
On 2016-03-19 11:18, Lisa Phifer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Greetings all,<br>
<br>
Attached please find materials developed by the leadership
team to
facilitate discussion during the next WG call. These
materials
include:<br>
<br>
(1) <u>A summary table of all work plan changes proposed
thus far.</u>
This serves as a consolidated record of all suggestions
made to date
during WG calls, meetings, and on the email list. Staff
will continue to
add any new suggestions made between now and the next WG
call as new rows
to the end of this table. This table is a tool to help all
WG members
easily recall and consider all of the suggestions made by
everyone,
before attempting to agree upon resolutions. In creating
this table, we
tried to extract and accurately paraphrase changes and
rationale from
lengthier email exchanges, but the WG's email archive (
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
eudora="autourl">
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a>) can
be consulted for
all email message text in full. Italicized "Notes" have
also
been included to provide linkage between suggestions and
related charter
questions.<br>
<br>
(2) <u>A mind map of fundamental questions and
sub-questions.</u> This
serves as a concise illustration of the fundamental
questions and
sub-questions detailed in the Issue Report and Charter.
This map can be
adjusted as the WG agrees upon refinements to questions
(including but
not limited to sequencing) and adds new subquestions,
inter-dependencies,
further inputs, and detailed policies that should be
"parked"
for consideration during phases 2/3. This map is a tool to
help the WG
better understand and reach agreement on fundamental
questions to be
addressed in phase 1 by providing an overall picture as
well as an
opportunity to start thinking about additional
sub-questions and whether
there are certain questions that need to be considered
before being able
to address other questions, etc.<br>
<br>
(3) <u>A simple text listing of the questions and
sub-questions in the
mind map</u> - for those who may find a simple bullet
list of questions
in text format more useful than a mind map.<br>
<br>
We hope that the WG will find these materials to be a
helpful starting
point to facilitate further WG discussion on the phase 1
work plan.
<br>
<br>
In addition, the leadership team is working on an
annotated draft of the
work plan itself, to be distributed on Monday for use
during Tuesday's
RDS PDP WG call.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
Lisa<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>