<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I agree with Greg Aaron that this possibility should be made available. If the poll can't be changed, then the group should be advised that there is a specific "write-in" candidate, i.e., </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:14.6667px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#674ea7"><i>“Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy.”</i></font></span><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:14.6667px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><i><br></i></font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">A specific "write-in" option will make it easier to assemble and evaluate the responses, since it mitigates the issue of dealing with varying wording, addition of factors and ambiguities, which come from individuals crafting their own responses with similar intent. It also clarifies that "write-in" options are welcome.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg Shatan</font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Gomes, Chuck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_1429970465446205902WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Greg,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I suggest that you insert your comments below in the comment box for item 2 and leave the four choices for item 1 blank. I just did a test submission and that will be allowed
by Survey Monkey.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">We have a very short time for survey completion so to change the survey now would make the time even shorter. We also have a very short time to prepare surveys after a WG
call so they will not be perfect. But hopefully they will facilitate more member participation than we normally get on the list.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_1429970465446205902__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<span></span>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Aaron<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 14, 2016 2:28 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Lisa Phifer <<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com" target="_blank">lisa@corecom.com</a>><span class=""><br>
<b>Cc:</b> RDS PDP WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
</span><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks, Lisa. No, your suggestion does not work for me, because. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_1429970465446205902MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The current options do not separate the concepts you mention. The current options all involve purpose AND access control, and all presume that access control to
thin data is required. We are not there yet. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_1429970465446205902MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The current options all present policy as something that can ONLY implemented via access control. My option does not.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_1429970465446205902MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Since the goal of the poll is to “reflect the breadth of discussion on yesterday’s call”, and my option was discussed yesterday, it is logical to include it.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_1429970465446205902MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Soliciting opinion about options except the one that the community currently has in place seems like an odd choice.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">All best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">--Greg<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Lisa Phifer [<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com" target="_blank">mailto:lisa@corecom.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Aaron <<a href="mailto:gca@icginc.com" target="_blank">gca@icginc.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> RDS PDP WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg, the poll question was worded to separate future deliberation on authentication and any potential access controls from current deliberation on the concept of purpose and whether and how purpose would apply to policy. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_1429970465446205902AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_1429970465446205902AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Would it address your concern if you gave in your rationale for not supporting any of the 4 options listed the explanation that you gave in your email? <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_1429970465446205902AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_1429970465446205902AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Lisa<br>
<br>
Sent from Lisa Phifer's iPhone<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Greg Aaron <<a href="mailto:gca@icginc.com" target="_blank">gca@icginc.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear Lisa:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The poll is missing an option that describes the status quo, and the option came up in yesterday’s discussion. That option could be stated: “Thin data’ about gTLD domain
names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy.”</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Can the poll be re-done with the addition option available? I don’t want to choose any of the current options, and the option above is important since it describes the current
situation. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The poll doesn’t present this option. Crucially, all the current choices say that data would be “accessible” only if users first meet a condition. For example, option “a”
means that all users would be required to declare their use/intent (and therefore possibly their identity) before being allowed to access any data. That’s the only way to deny access for “illegitimate purposes”.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Currently, data is accessible in WHOIS to anyone who wants to look at it, and policy dictates that there are some things one should not then USE it for. On the call, someone
mentioned that these prohibited uses are mentioned in the RAA. (In paragraph 3.3.5 to be precise.) To put it another way: access to data is currently given to all, and the policy is that people shouldn’t then use the data for things like spamming. The policy
does not gate access to the data; the policy is a terns of use. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">On yesterday’s call, Alan Greenberg and I made comments along the lines that it’s problematic to make all the users of WHOIS declare their intent/use before getting (on-PII)
data. It would make all legitimate users jump through hoops, and it wouldn’t be an enforceable policy anyway. (Did I paraphrase correctly, Alan?)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">--Greg</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">RAA 3.3.5: “In providing query-based public access to registration data as required by Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of
the data provided, except as permitted by any Specification or Policy established by ICANN. Unless and until ICANN establishes a different Consensus Policy, Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except
to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, postal mail, facsimile or other means of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b)
enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of any Registry Operator or ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.”</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Lisa Phifer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> RDS PDP WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<br>
<br>
During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question:<br>
<br>
<i>2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why?<br>
2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes?
<br>
<br>
</i>focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data."<br>
<br>
To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2" target="_blank">https://www.surveymonkey.com/<wbr>r/6BMJLB2<br>
<br>
</a>Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation.<br>
<br>
All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call.
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Lisa<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>