<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:23558064;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-443754364 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:455611692;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-565558752 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:750811079;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-564480760 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:764378898;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1313701466 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:871266927;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-515844844 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l4:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l4:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:1152525866;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1294812082 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6
{mso-list-id:1343165279;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:33955108 67698703 67698711 67698689 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l6:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-text:"%2\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l6:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l7
{mso-list-id:1605842746;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-253348414 67698703 67698689 67698689 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l7:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l7:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l7:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l7:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l8
{mso-list-id:1810512350;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1481815960 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l8:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l8:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l8:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l8:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks Amr. The second to last bullet under item 3 below says “</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt">the EWG recommended that entirely public anonymous access by anyone for any purpose be abandoned</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt">”.
I am not sure that this is worded accurately; it could be interpreted to mean that the EWG recommended that no data elements should be anonymously accessible by anyone and I do not believe that the EWG said that. I think they said that “the practice of anonymous
public access for all data elements should be abandoned”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I invite those who were on the EWG to correct me if I am wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></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">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Amr Elsadr<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 25, 2017 3:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Action Items and Notes from Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 25 April 2017<br>
<b>Importance:</b> High<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hello again,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Apologies for the duplication and any confusion, but some revisions in the Action Items and Notes below. Please disregard the first set.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks again.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Amr<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw">https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw</a><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Action Items:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Susan Kawaguchi to send list of questions to the full Working Group for review following the Working Group call, with the goal of finalizing the list
for transmission to selected ccTLDs following next WG call</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Working Group members should review the proposed questions to ccTLD operators, and send any feedback on-list prior to next Working Group call</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">David Cake will communicate to the full Working Group by the end of this week proposed definitions/concepts to replace the term "authoritative" proposed
new term(s) to reflect this</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Working Group members should review the proposed term(s) and definition(s) and provide any feedback on-list, preferably prior to next Working Group
call<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">all WG members to review the new section 5 found here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.pdf">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.pdf</a>, which reflects how the EWG broke apart this complex question into a few key concepts<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Notes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Plan to complete in-progress tasks<o:p></o:p></span>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.5in;mso-list:l6 level2 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ccTLD questions<o:p></o:p></span>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l6 level3 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Small team has a list of 13 questions for ccTLD Registries<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l6 level3 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Growing list of Registries, seeking contacts to reach out to them<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l6 level3 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Susan Kawaguchi to send list of questions to the full Working Group for review, with the goal of finalizing the list for transmission to selected
ccTLDs following next WG call<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l6 level3 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Working Group members should review the questions, and send any feedback on-list prior to next Working Group call<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.5in;mso-list:l6 level2 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Definition of authoritative<o:p></o:p></span>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l6 level3 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Small team has found the word "authoritative" to be confusing, and is suggesting not using it<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l6 level3 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Definition in the DNS context is not useful, conflict between legal and technical use of the word<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l6 level3 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Small team suggests that full Working Group attempt to find an alternative word(s) to reflect concepts that the WG was trying reflect in its statement of
purpose<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l6 level3 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM: David Cake will communicate to the full Working Group by the end of this week proposed definitions/concepts to replace the term "authoritative"
proposed new term(s) to reflect this<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l6 level3 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Working Group members should review the proposed term(s) and definition(s) and provide any feedback on-list, preferably prior to next Working
Group call<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</li></ol>
</li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Revised Task 12 sequence and timeline<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">See <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986784/RDSPDP-Task12-Revised21April2017.pdf">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986784/RDSPDP-Task12-Revised21April2017.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Slide 1 has the Phase 1 workflow as agreed to in the WG’s work plan and reviewed in Hyderabad to first address the 5 charter questions, in order to answer
the foundational question: whether a next-generation RDS needs to be developed or whether the existing WHOIS can be modified. These recommendations will be reflected in a first Initial Report to be distributed for Public Comment. The WG will then move on to
consider the next 6 charter questions, producing a second Initial Report for Public Comment. Only after those reports are produced will the WG try to reach formal consensus to conclude Phase 1. Only if Phase 1 recommends that a Next-Gen RDS is needed, and
the GNSO Council agrees, will the PDP move on to Phases 2/3 to develop policies and implementation/coexistence guidance for a Next-Gen RDS.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Slide 2 shows the Task 12 subtasks in order that the Working Group will be attempting to address them (including key concepts on possible requirements for
users/purposes, data elements and privacy of "thin" data discussed thus far in Task 12.a)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Working Group has had difficulty in agreeing on key concepts without knowing what kind of access will be permitted --> Working Group Leadership has adjusted
workplan to address Gated Access now as Task 12.b, then revisit users/purpose, data elements and privacy in Task 12.c. This re-ordering is in response to input from many WG members, to stop deferring the difficult question of whether all data will remain
public, so that more progress can be made on other questions, based on the answer to 12.b.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Slide 3 details target dates by which Working Group should try to reach rough consensus on answers to the first 5 questions prior to taking a second pass
to frame key concepts as draft requirements, to be reflected in the first initial report which we hope to start drafting by ICANN60<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">WG members expressed different points of view on whether to focus first on “thin” data only or to address access to “thin” and “thick” at the same time. If
the Working Group stumbles on addressing access to "thin" data alone, Working Group may adjust plan to address access to both "thin" and "thick" data in Task 12.b.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Deliberation on the charter question of gated access (balancing proposed privacy and access requirements) will be done by the Working Group - goal is to base
Working Group decisions on rough consensus agreements for fundamental requirements, including objective data (example: applicable legal requirements)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Refer to Working Group Charter on "rules of engagement" in order to settle differences of opinion:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/WG+Charter">https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/WG+Charter</a><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">For further guidance on how the PDP process is designed to deliberation upon multiple varying viewpoints to reach consensus policy recommendations, see also
GNSO PDP Process: <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA">
http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA</a> <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Possible to have a generic discussion on overall requirements for Gated Access before deciding which data elements will be public, and which will not - in
that context, possible to defer discussion on "thin" vs "thick"<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Start deliberation on the charter question/subquestion 5.1: Should gTLD registration “thin” data be entirely public or should access be controlled?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">See <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078605/NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078605/NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">When determining whether all “thin data” should be public or access to some data elements should be controlled in some way, A balance needs to be achieved between
complying with applicable privacy/data protection legal requirements, and preventing abuse<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">GDPR will be enforced on contracted parties doing business with customers in the EU, so needs to be addressed using a flexible system that achieves a balance
between compliance with applicable law and preventing abuse - cannot pick which laws the system will comply with<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The Working Group needs to move beyond theoretical discussion, and address the specifics of the issue (practical examples) in order to answer this and other
Charter questions. For example, are there some “thin data” elements that cannot be made public (published and accessible to anyone, for any reasons) in some jurisdictions?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Will the Working Group be able to address all concerns relating to all applicable legal jurisdictions? Does it need to in order to answer this charter question?<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- What are the guiding principles that should be used to determine level(s) of access (including law enforcement access)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From AC Chat: based on the discussion we’ve had to date, I believe all thin whois data should be publicly available as it is either not personally identifiable
information, or, in extreme edge cases (such as a long domain name that includes personal information), then it is clear that that individual has chosen to make such information public.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Privacy concerns apply to users of the Internet, but do they apply to registrants of domain names in the same way? If you register a domain name, are you subject
to responsibilities normally associated with owners of other kinds of property? Is there a higher bar that requires more from registrants<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From AC Chat: to me, the answer is "both". it should be public, but controls for access should be available to limit rates and so on. Note that rate limits
are today applied to entirely public access to WHOIS; rate limits could also be applied to gated access, but the charter question is really more about limiting who can access data and why as opposed to anyone accessing data for any reason.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From AC Chat: Regarding the publication of thin data: Depends - I see no need to publish it, but there may be technical arguments for it. After all, ownership
of phone numbers is not [always] public, land ownership data is [sometimes] gated, even company registration data is gated in some countries and public in others<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The concern raised above is whether there is a legitimate purpose for every data element. If there is no legitimate purpose for a given data element, it wouldn’t
be published (publicly or otherwise).<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Question to Working Group members: If the Working Group can identify legitimate purposes to collect "thin" data elements, are there reasons why any of those “thin data” elements should not be publicly displayed
in a new RDS system as they are today in WHOIS? And if yes, why not?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Reminder: This WG is basing deliberation on the Thick WHOIS Definition of "thin" data as a starting point:
<i>A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server
data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar’s Whois service</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Today's WHOIS publishes both "thin" and "thick" data elements, and allows anonymous WHOIS query to all of those data elements - Gated Access might limit access
to both what data is accessible (e.g., for each purpose), as well as authenticating who is permitted this access. Rate limiting is a separate anti-abuse measure that can be applied to either public or gated access.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From the AC Chat: There are many ways one can "gate" access - but the question on the table is should access remain NON gated (that is, entirely public)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Reason for not displaying "thin" data publicly: Cannot answer the question without first determining whether there is a legitimate purpose that complies with
applicable law to first collect the data<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Can the need to publish "thin" data be satisfied by other technical means other than publicly displaying it? For example, cell phone numbers are unlisted and
that doesn't cause problems even though landline phone numbers are listed. People find other ways to accomplish their objectives without a directory. Possibly this applies to domain name thin data?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">There may be limitations in commercial purposes for access to data, depending upon jurisdiction and applicable law. - Question should be: Does one have a legitimate
purpose in accessing the data?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Note: This is charter question UP. For now assume there is some “thin” data with legitimate purpose; charter question GA asks: Should access to that data remain
entirely public?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Some believe that the only people who need access to "thin" data are the one's operating the domain name, but the reason why WHOIS "thin" data is publicly displayed
is because other operators (operators of the infrastructure on the Internet) need the means to contact each other - possible reason for ungated public access to "thin" data<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">"thin" data that does not include personally identifiable information still has value in terms of access for those who would like to determine which registrar
is the sponsoring registrar, and when the domain name was registered - was it registered prior to an associated trademark is registered, and does the trademark holder have a legitimate reason to seek contact with the domain name registrant?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The Working Group needs to answer the question of gated access to "thin" data using some assumptions, such as that there is a legitimate purpose in collection
of "thin" data<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">In answer to this charter question, the EWG recommended that entirely public anonymous access by anyone for any purpose be abandoned. Instead, some data elements
would be made public, to anyone for every legitimate purpose, while other data elements would be gated – that is, available to authenticated requestors for authorized purposes only. Refer to the Working Document new Section 5 for a few relevant excerpts and
key concepts from the EWG Report.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Working Group members need to provide specific and concrete reasons why "thin" data elements should not be publicly displayed (under the assumption that there
is a legitimate purpose to collect and process this data)<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="4" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Confirm next meeting date: 2 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Meeting Materials (all posted at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw)">https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw)</a><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#333333;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo7;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986784/RDSPDP-Task12-Revised-21April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1492802630734&api=v2"><span style="color:#3B73AF;text-decoration:none">RDSPDP-Task12-Revised-21April2017.pdf</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#333333;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo7;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078605/NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1492802791000&api=v2"><span style="color:#3B73AF;text-decoration:none">NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf</span></a> -
excerpted from<br>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1492966757152&api=v2"><span style="color:#3B73AF;text-decoration:none">KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.pdf</span></a> and <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1492966735704&api=v2"><span style="color:#3B73AF;text-decoration:none">doc</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#333333;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo7;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078601/ICANN58-Privacy-Panel-Responses-Draft-7April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1491837560000&api=v2"><span style="color:#3B73AF;text-decoration:none">ICANN58-Privacy-Panel-Responses-Draft-7April2017.pdf</span></a> and <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078601/ICANN58-Privacy-Panel-Responses-Draft-7April2017.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1491839756000&api=v2"><span style="color:#3B73AF;text-decoration:none">doc</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black"><<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org">amr.elsadr@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:15 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Action Items and Notes from Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 25 April 2017<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Working Group Members,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Below are the Action Items and Notes from today’s call. Please keep an eye out for emails from Susan Kawaguchi concerning the proposed questions to ccTLD registry operators’ measures to comply with the GDPR,
as well as from David Cake on an update regarding the Working Group’s working definition of “authoritative”.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Amr</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Action Items:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo8"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Susan Kawaguchi to send list of questions to the full Working Group for review following the Working Group call, with the goal of finalizing the list
for transmission to selected ccTLDs following next WG call</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo8"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Working Group members should review the proposed questions to ccTLD operators, and send any feedback on-list prior to next Working Group call</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo8"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">David Cake will communicate to the full Working Group by the end of this week proposed definitions/concepts to replace the term "authoritative" proposed
new term(s) to reflect this</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo8"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Working Group members should review the proposed term(s) and definition(s) and provide any feedback on-list, preferably prior to next Working Group
call</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Notes:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Plan to complete in-progress tasks</span><o:p></o:p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.5in;mso-list:l7 level2 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ccTLD questions</span><o:p></o:p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Small team has a list of 13 questions for ccTLD Registries</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Growing list of Registries, seeking contacts to reach out to them</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Susan Kawaguchi to send list of questions to the full Working Group for review, with the goal of finalizing the list for transmission
to selected ccTLDs following next WG call</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Working Group members should review the questions, and send any feedback on-list prior to next Working Group call</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul>
</li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.5in;mso-list:l7 level2 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Definition of authoritative</span><o:p></o:p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Small team has found the word "authoritative" to be confusing, and is suggesting not using it</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Definition in the DNS context is not useful, conflict between legal and technical use of the word</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Small team suggests that full Working Group attempt to find an alternative word(s) to reflect concepts that the WG was trying reflect in its statement
of purpose</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM: David Cake will communicate to the full Working Group by the end of this week proposed definitions/concepts to replace the term "authoritative"
proposed new term(s) to reflect this</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.75in;mso-list:l7 level3 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM: Working Group members should review the proposed term(s) and definition(s) and provide any feedback on-list, preferably prior to next
Working Group call</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul>
</li></ul>
</li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Revised Task 12 sequence and timeline</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">See
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986784/RDSPDP-Task12-Revised21April2017.pdf">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986784/RDSPDP-Task12-Revised21April2017.pdf</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Slide 1 has the Phase 1 workflow as agreed to in the WG’s work plan and reviewed in Hyderabad to first address the 5 charter questions, in order to
answer the foundational question: whether a next-generation RDS needs to be developed or whether the existing WHOIS can be modified. These recommendations will be reflected in a first Initial Report to be distributed for Public Comment. The WG will then move
on to consider the next 6 charter questions, producing a second Initial Report for Public Comment. Only after those reports are produced will the WG try to reach formal consensus to conclude Phase 1. Only if Phase 1 recommends that a Next-Gen RDS is needed,
and the GNSO Council agrees, will the PDP move on to Phases 2/3 to develop policies and implementation/coexistence guidance for a Next-Gen RDS.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Slide 2 shows the Task 12 subtasks in order that the Working Group will be attempting to address them (including key concepts on possible requirements
for users/purposes, data elements and privacy of "thin" data discussed thus far in Task 12.a)</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Working Group has had difficulty in agreeing on key concepts without knowing what kind of access will be permitted --> Working Group Leadership has
adjusted workplan to address Gated Access now as Task 12.b, then revisit users/purpose, data elements and privacy in Task 12.c. This re-ordering is in response to input from many WG members, to stop deferring the difficult question of whether all data will
remain public, so that more progress can be made on other questions, based on the answer to 12.b.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Slide 3 details target dates by which Working Group should try to reach rough consensus on answers to the first 5 questions prior to taking a second
pass to frame key concepts as draft requirements, to be reflected in the first initial report which we hope to start drafting by ICANN60</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">WG members expressed different points of view on whether to focus first on “thin” data only or to address access to “thin” and “thick” at the same
time. If the Working Group stumbles on addressing access to "thin" data alone, Working Group may adjust plan to address access to both "thin" and "thick" data in Task 12.b.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Deliberation on the charter question of gated access (balancing proposed privacy and access requirements) will be done by the Working Group - goal
is to base Working Group decisions on rough consensus agreements for fundamental requirements, including objective data (example: applicable legal requirements)</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Refer to Working Group Charter on "rules of engagement" in order to settle differences of opinion:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/WG+Charter">https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/WG+Charter</a></span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">For further guidance on how the PDP process is designed to deliberation upon multiple varying viewpoints to reach consensus policy recommendations,
see also GNSO PDP Process: <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA">
http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA</a> </span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Possible to have a generic discussion on overall requirements for Gated Access before deciding which data elements will be public, and which will not
- in that context, possible to defer discussion on "thin" vs "thick"</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Start deliberation on the charter question/subquestion 5.1: Should gTLD registration “thin” data be entirely public or should access be controlled?</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">See <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078605/NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078605/NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">When determining whether all “thin data” should be public or access to some data elements should be controlled in some way, A balance needs to be achieved
between complying with applicable privacy/data protection legal requirements, and preventing abuse</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">GDPR will be enforced on contracted parties doing business with customers in the EU, so needs to be addressed using a flexible system that achieves a
balance between compliance with applicable law and preventing abuse - cannot pick which laws the system will comply with</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The Working Group needs to move beyond theoretical discussion, and address the specifics of the issue (practical examples) in order to answer this and
other Charter questions. For example, are there some “thin data” elements that cannot be made public (published and accessible to anyone, for any reasons) in some jurisdictions?</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Will the Working Group be able to address all concerns relating to all applicable legal jurisdictions? Does it need to in order to answer this charter
question?</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- What are the guiding principles that should be used to determine level(s) of access (including law enforcement access)?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From AC Chat: based on the discussion we’ve had to date, I believe all thin whois data should be publicly available as it is either not personally identifiable
information, or, in extreme edge cases (such as a long domain name that includes personal information), then it is clear that that individual has chosen to make such information public.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Privacy concerns apply to users of the Internet, but do they apply to registrants of domain names in the same way? If you register a domain name, are
you subject to responsibilities normally associated with owners of other kinds of property? Is there a higher bar that requires more from registrants</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From AC Chat: to me, the answer is "both". it should be public, but controls for access should be available to limit rates and so on. Note that rate
limits are today applied to entirely public access to WHOIS; rate limits could also be applied to gated access, but the charter question is really more about limiting who can access data and why as opposed to anyone accessing data for any reason.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From AC Chat: Regarding the publication of thin data: Depends - I see no need to publish it, but there may be technical arguments for it. After all,
ownership of phone numbers is not [always] public, land ownership data is [sometimes] gated, even company registration data is gated in some countries and public in others</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The concern raised above is whether there is a legitimate purpose for every data element. If there is no legitimate purpose for a given data element,
it wouldn’t be published (publicly or otherwise).</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Question to Working Group members: If the Working Group can identify legitimate purposes to collect "thin" data elements, are there reasons why any of those “thin data” elements should not be publicly displayed
in a new RDS system as they are today in WHOIS? And if yes, why not?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Reminder: This WG is basing deliberation on the Thick WHOIS Definition of "thin" data as a starting point:
<i>A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server
data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar’s Whois service</i>.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Today's WHOIS publishes both "thin" and "thick" data elements, and allows anonymous WHOIS query to all of those data elements - Gated Access might limit
access to both what data is accessible (e.g., for each purpose), as well as authenticating who is permitted this access. Rate limiting is a separate anti-abuse measure that can be applied to either public or gated access.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From the AC Chat: There are many ways one can "gate" access - but the question on the table is should access remain NON gated (that is, entirely public)</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Reason for not displaying "thin" data publicly: Cannot answer the question without first determining whether there is a legitimate purpose that complies
with applicable law to first collect the data</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Can the need to publish "thin" data be satisfied by other technical means other than publicly displaying it? For example, cell phone numbers are unlisted
and that doesn't cause problems even though landline phone numbers are listed. People find other ways to accomplish their objectives without a directory. Possibly this applies to domain name thin data?</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">There may be limitations in commercial purposes for access to data, depending upon jurisdiction and applicable law. - Question should be: Does one have
a legitimate purpose in accessing the data?</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Note: This is charter question UP. For now assume there is some “thin” data with legitimate purpose; charter question GA asks: Should access to that
data remain entirely public?</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Some believe that the only people who need access to "thin" data are the one's operating the domain name, but the reason why WHOIS "thin" data is publicly
displayed is because other operators (operators of the infrastructure on the Internet) need the means to contact each other - possible reason for ungated public access to "thin" data</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">"thin" data that does not include personally identifiable information still has value in terms of access for those who would like to determine which
registrar is the sponsoring registrar, and when the domain name was registered - was it registered prior to an associated trademark is registered, and does the trademark holder have a legitimate reason to seek contact with the domain name registrant?</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The Working Group needs to answer the question of gated access to "thin" data using some assumptions, such as that there is a legitimate purpose in collection
of "thin" data</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo6"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">In answer to this charter question, the EWG recommended that entirely public anonymous access by anyone for any purpose be abandoned. Instead, some data
elements would be made public, to anyone for every legitimate purpose, while other data elements would be gated – that is, available to authenticated requestors for authorized purposes only. Refer to the Working Document new Section 5 for a few relevant excerpts
and key concepts from the EWG Report.</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="4" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Confirm action items and proposed decision points</span><o:p></o:p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.5in;mso-list:l7 level2 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Working Group members need to provide specific and concrete reasons why "thin" data elements should not be publicly displayed (under the assumption
that there is a legitimate purpose to collect and process this data)</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul>
</li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo9"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Confirm next meeting date: 2 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC
</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>