<html>
<body>
<font face="Calibri">Dear All,<br><br>
Please find below the notes, WG agreements and action items from today's
RDS PDP WG meeting.<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Lisa<br><br>
=============<br><br>
<b>Notes - RDS PDP WG Meeting – 24 January 2017: <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/jrPDAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/jrPDAw</a>.<br><br>
<br>
</i>1. Roll call / SOI
<ul>
<li>Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect
<li>Please remember to state your name for transcription purposes and do
not forget to mute your line when not speaking.
<li>Please remember to update your SOI, if/when needed
</ul><br>
2. Review poll results: Question 8 - Publication of "raw data"
for WG polls<br><br>
a. Overview of poll conclusions & "raw data" options from
Survey Monkey
<ul>
<li>Poll Results:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63157134/FinalResults-Poll-on-Purpose-from-18JanCall.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1485193159000&api=v2">
<b>FinalResults-Poll-on-Purpose-from-18JanCall.pdf</a></b>
<li>Example of "raw data" for a single answer to this poll:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63157134/Data_FilterRsp14_170123_RawExcel.xls?version=1&modificationDate=1485283441248&api=v2">
Data_FilterRsp14_170123_RawExcel.xls</a>
<li>Example of exported individual response for a single answer to this
poll:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63157134/Response_14_170123.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1485283504827&api=v2">
Response_14_170123.pdf</a><br>
<li>23 responses to Q8 - strong opposition to including IP addresses in
"raw data"
<li>8 opposed to including name, 9 opposed to individual responses -
roughly one third of those who responded
<li>Comment 4) timestamp may be of concern, could be stripped from Excel
export but not (easily redacted) from PDF
<li>Comment 7) request for member affiliation to be included - polls are
expecting respondents to speak for themselves, even if you do represent a
group, perhaps this should be explicitly noted in every poll. Note that
affiliation is available but not readily unless included in poll results.
GNSO WG guidelines are clear that polls are not votes, not consensus
calls and shouldn't be taken as such - a way to find out what others say,
and we should know who is saying it. Should nationality or organizational
affiliation play into what's published? In spirit of transparency, some
have no objection to publishing data; two WG members changed view to this
after discussion. Others are concerned inclusion might call into question
whether they are speaking for their affiliation.
<li>Alternatives include (a) add (optional?) affiliation to spreadsheet
only, (b) add option for WG member name to be included in spreadsheet
only (c) add option for WG member to provide their employer's name
<li>Need to understand the problem that we're trying to solve before we
can make a change in current process. Several other WG members supported
this view.
<li>Request from Stephanie Perrin can be found here:
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/2017-January/002065.html">
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/2017-January/002065.html</a>
</ul><br>
<b>Action:</b> Staff to request that Stephanie Perrin provide explanation
of problem to be solved to the WG list to resolve this request.<br><br>
b. Attempt to reach WG consensus on "raw data" for future WG
polls
<ul>
<li>To be progressed on-line via WG mail
<li>Conclusion deferred to next week's meeting
</ul><br>
3. Review poll results: Questions 1-7 - Purposes for "thin
data" collection<br><br>
a. Review of poll conclusions & comments/clarifications
<ul>
<li>Poll Results:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63157134/FinalResults-Poll-on-Purpose-from-18JanCall.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1485193159000&api=v2">
<b>FinalResults-Poll-on-Purpose-from-18JanCall.pdf</a></b>
<li>Note: All of the following poll questions apply only to "thin
data", only to purpose(s) for collection
</ul><br>
<u>Q1 - Domain Name Certification</u>
<ul>
<li>21:3 support for WG Agreement #1 : Domain Name Certification is a
legitimate purpose for "thin data" collection.
<li>Noted that we are only talking about "thin data" so a lot
of concerns around privacy are moot
<li>There is no obligation on anyone to get an SSL cert - if you are
requesting an SSL cert, you are giving CA permission to do validation
using your data
<li>Note that those taking CC payments are obligated by PCI compliance to
get certs
<li>Purposes doesn't seem self-evident to all
<li>Purposes such as this one need more than "thin data"
(looking only at "thin data" now to break this into smaller
pieces to facilitate progress, but need to get beyond "thin
data" soon)
<li>Can purposes being legitimate without being a purpose of RDS? Need to
consider in context of Purpose Statement.
<li>Are some taking a too constrained view of purposes?
<li>A useful purpose for data that already exists vs. a purpose for
collection in the first place, with exception of Domain Name Control
which may be self-evident
<li>If anything is a purpose for collection, we must state definitely why
the purpose is legitimate. What is the foundation and motivation for that
purpose?
<li>Reason for collection + large list of potential uses that may or may
not be deemed acceptable
</ul><br>
<u>Q2 - Business Domain Name Purchase or
Sale</u>
<ul>
<li>21:2 support for WG Agreement #2 : Business Domain Name Purchase or
Sale is a legitimate purpose for "thin data" collection.
<li>No problem having this an appropriate use, but don't understand why
this would be a purpose of collection
</ul><br>
<u>Q3 - Academic/Public Interest DNS Research</u>
<ul>
<li>19:3 support for WG Agreement #3 : Academic / Public Interest DNS
Research is a legitimate purpose for "thin data" collection.
<li>Do "thin data" only really pose an issue for this purpose?
</ul><br>
<u>Q4 - Regulatory and Contractual Enforcement</u>
<ul>
<li>22:2 support for WG Agreement #4 : Regulatory and Contractual
Enforcement is a legitimate purpose for "thin data"
collection.
<li>Ditto
</ul><br>
<u>Q5 - Criminal Investigation & DNS Abuse
Mitigation</u>
<ul>
<li>23:1 support for WG Agreement #5 : Criminal Investigation & DNS
Abuse Mitigation is a legitimate purpose for "thin data"
collection.
<li>Thin data seems more relevant to this purpose but does collecting for
this purpose pose any risk?
<li>No problem with data being used for anti-abuse but should data be
collected for express purpose of being investigated for possible
abuse/criminal activity?
</ul><br>
<u>Q6 - Legal Actions</u>
<ul>
<li>22:3 support for WG Agreement #6 : Legal Actions is a legitimate
purpose for "thin data" collection.
<li>What is the distinction between purpose, collection, use?
<li>Why does purpose for collection matter? How will it be applied later
on?
<li>May jump ahead to Privacy charter question to better understand how
data protection laws define and differentiate between purpose of
collection and purpose of disclosure/display
</ul><br>
<u>Q7 - Individual Internet Use</u>
<ul>
<li>22:1 support for WG Agreement #7 : Individual Internet Use is a
legitimate purpose for "thin data" collection.
</ul><br>
b. Add results to
"<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63157134/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-19January2017.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1484857960000&api=v2">
Key Concepts Deliberation Working Draft</a>" Section 2.2.2<br><br>
<b>Action:</b> Staff to update Section 2.2.2 conclusions reached by this
the 18 January poll (listed above)<br><br>
4. After completing deliberation on Users/Purposes Charter Question 2.2
for thin data collection only:<br><br>
<i> 2.2.1 For what specific (legitimate?)
purposes should gTLD registration thin data elements be
collected?<br><br>
</i> We will then proceed to deliberating on Data
Elements Charter Question 3.1 for thin data only:<br><br>
<i> 3.3.1 Do existing gTLD registration
"thin data" elements sufficiently meet the needs of purposes
identified as permissible for collection of "thin data"
elements?<br><br>
</i> See handouts:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63157265/18JanMeeting-PurposesForThinData-Handout.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1484586621000&api=v2">
18JanMeeting-PurposesForThinData-Handout.pdf</a> and
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63157134/24JanMeeting-ThinDataElementCollection-Handout.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1485276827000&api=v2">
24JanMeeting-ThinDataElementCollection-Handout.pdf</a>
<ul>
<li>May jump ahead to charter question of Privacy next week to get a
better understanding of "purpose" and how it does or doesn't
apply to "thin data" elements
</ul><br>
5. Confirm action items and proposed decision points.<br><br>
<b>Action:</b> Staff to request that Stephanie provide explanation of
problem to be solved to the WG list to resolve this request. WG members
to respond with any concerns/questions.<br><br>
<b>Action:</b> Staff to update Section 2.2.2 conclusions reached by this
the 18 January poll (listed above)<br><br>
<b>WG Agreements</b> - see above list<br><br>
6. Confirm next meeting date: Tuesday 31 January 2017 at 17.00
UTC<br><br>
<br><br>
<b>Meeting materials: </b><i>https://community.icann.org/x/jrPDAw<br>
</font></i></body>
</html>