<html>
<body>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica">Dear all,<br><br>
Below please find notes and action items from today's RDS PDP WG call.
<br><br>
A redline documenting the output of agenda item 3 (statement of
purpose) will be circulated separately and also posted on the wiki page
linked below for your review and comment.<br><br>
Best, Lisa<br><br>
<b>Notes 19/10 – RDS PDP WG Meeting<br><br>
</b><i>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 at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/eBy4Aw. " eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/eBy4Aw.</a></i>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/eBy4Aw. " eudora="autourl">
<br><br>
</a>1) Roll call/SOI update
<ul>
<li>Roll call will be taken from AC
<li>Please remember to update your SOI
</ul><br>
2) Brief status updates:<br><br>
a) Code review - Review is underway, some new codes
are being identified and will be added. Aim to complete this work by the
next WG meeting.<br><br>
b) Triage effort - There are a number of outstanding
documents that still need to be reviewed for possible requirements in
order to ensure that the list is complete (IRD related documents, PPSAI
and new EU Privacy Legislation).<br><br>
3) Continue work on statement of purpose (see latest version dated 13
October, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/eBy4Aw)
<ul>
<li>Progress made on previous calls to address comments on Specific
Purposes, Items 1-3.
<li>Item 1 - Is it necessary to link to ICANN's Diagram of gTLD
Lifecycle? No opposition to deleting that parenthetical citation.
<li>Item 2 - What is intent of the phrase "based on agreed
policy"? That qualifier was added during last week's call to
indicate that policy will further detail the information to be provided
and who will have access to it.
<li>Items 2/3 - Is there a better term than "agreed" policy?
Alternative "approved" - to be applied consistently throughout,
but enclosed in brackets to reflect some disagreement.
<li>In addition, should "and applicable law" be added here?
Note that there is already concern about procedure for handling conflicts
between WHOIS policy and applicable law. RDS policy may result in changes
to previously-approved policy and thus may not conflict with applicable
law. See Goals for each Purpose (iii) - is that sufficient to reflect
goal to avoid conflict by enabling compliance?
<li>Item 2 - Is there a better term than "provide" information,
such as "manage" information? In last week's call it was
observed that the RDS does not manage data.
<li>Items 2/3 - Is it helpful to add a footnote explaining that domain
contacts includes more than admin and technical contacts ("all
possible contacts" or "contacts related to the domain name,
including those directly related to the domain name and also those
involved in the registration system")
<li>Items 2/3 - Use parallel construction "A purpose of RDS
is..."
<li>Item 4 - Addresses a purpose of gTLD registration data - does it
indicate if a domain name IS registered, or HAS BEEN registered, or both?
Will be determined by policies. Note that if a domain name isn't
identified as registered in WHOIS today, that does not imply that the
name is available (for example, variants, reserved names). Registries and
Registrars use other mechanisms like EPP to check name availability. May
not be useful to conflate these two. However people who are looking to
register domain names do use WHOIS for this today - it is a real-world
issue. Possible alt text for further consideration: "To provide a
record of whether a domain name is registered, available for
registration, or unavailable for registration"
<li>Item 5 - Can RDS actually be an authoritative source of data, or are
Registrars the authoritative source? Is accuracy the job of the RDS or is
that another system such as WHOIS ARS? Is requiring data to be accurate
inconsistent with the way DNS works?
</ul><br>
<b>Action #1:</b> Staff to circulate call results as redline. All WG
members to review redline and submit any further feedback on-list before
next WG call.<br><br>
4) ICANN57 plans - F2F WG meeting is scheduled for Thursday morning at
ICANN57; staff is working with leadership team to develop proposed
agenda<br><br>
5) Confirm next meeting date: Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 16:00
UTC<br><br>
<br>
<b>Meeting Materials:
</b><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/eBy4Aw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/eBy4Aw<br>
</a></font></body>
</html>