<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">Perfect thanks.</font></div><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">Can we ask Staff to maintain a vocabulary list with definitions for ease in reference (not a joke).?</font></div><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">Also, can we consider retaining an expert to give us information as to the various privacy laws that people are referencing? I have participated in other WGs where this was done with great success.</font></div><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">Regards,</font></div><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">Paul</font></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 3:26 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:paul@law.es">paul@law.es</a>>, "<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com">lisa@corecom.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com">lisa@corecom.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org">amr.elsadr@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org">amr.elsadr@icann.org</a>>, "<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><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Action Items and Notes from Next-Generation RDS PDP Working Group Call - 25 April 2017<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div 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"><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:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
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.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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:112946650;
mso-list-template-ids:1095000638;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:177237188;
mso-list-template-ids:-201543552;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:427383936;
mso-list-template-ids:-1411982710;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:459493945;
mso-list-template-ids:1427150872;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:579293136;
mso-list-template-ids:982972010;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:774058546;
mso-list-template-ids:-1053677814;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l5:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l5:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6
{mso-list-id:909775961;
mso-list-template-ids:2080033894;}
@list l6:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l6:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l6:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7
{mso-list-id:1055203386;
mso-list-template-ids:249717040;}
@list l7:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l7:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l7:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8
{mso-list-id:1135877476;
mso-list-template-ids:2135296188;}
@list l8:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l8:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9
{mso-list-id:1344747118;
mso-list-template-ids:-696075278;}
@list l9:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10
{mso-list-id:1825780676;
mso-list-template-ids:873601566;}
@list l10:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l10:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l11
{mso-list-id:2012222593;
mso-list-template-ids:-1738607500;}
@list l11:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l11:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l11:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
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]--><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Paul,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">As became clear in our meeting earlier this week and the discussions that have followed, we will have to be very clear about what we mean by gated. It is my opinion right
now that we will probably need to treat the following types of gating differently: operational gating such as rate limiting and Captcha and what you mention as ‘purpose’ gating. I think you are correct that these can be thought of as a form of gating but
I don’t believe that they are what we need to focus on. I believe the Gated Access that we need to focus on relates to restricting access to certain categories of users to information that is not available to the general public.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Does that make sense?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Purpose based access is a key element of the EWG Report and the GDPR.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><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;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Paul Keating [<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es">mailto:Paul@law.es</a>]
<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:05 AM<br><b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com">lisa@corecom.com</a>; <a href="mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org">amr.elsadr@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><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<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Chuck,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I am having issues with the language being used.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Gated to mean indicates ANY restriction to access. Thus, even a Captcha would be gated (albeit not a very strong gate).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">It thus seems inconsistent to me to state:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">No more anonymous access by anyone BUT<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Some data will be available to everyone BUT only for legitimate purposes<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Other data will be “gated”.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The requirement of a “legitimate” purpose is nothing but a gating concept.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">When I read the EWG text there is no mention of “legitimacy” and thus whatever data set was recommended to be available to the public was without restriction action
(e.g. No gate).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Thank you <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br><b>Reply-To: </b>"Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 12:05 AM<br><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com">lisa@corecom.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com">lisa@corecom.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org">amr.elsadr@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org">amr.elsadr@icann.org</a>>,
"<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>Re: [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-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #B5C4DF 4.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-right:0in" id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks Lisa. I should have focused on the second sentence instead of just the first because the second sentence is clearer in my opinion.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Chuck</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></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;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Lisa Phifer [<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com">mailto:lisa@corecom.com</a>]
<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 25, 2017 5:59 PM<br><b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org">amr.elsadr@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><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</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chuck, <br><br>
The bullet states that in the second sentence:<br><br><i>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, avaailable 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.<br><br></i>I paraphrased this bullet from the EWG Report excerpts that appear in the new Section 5 in our working document, but perhaps I should have quoted the EWG Report verbatim:<br><br><i>"The EWG recommends that a new approach be taken for registration data access, abandoning entirely anonymous access by everyone to everything in favor of a new paradigm that combines public access to some data with gated access to other data."<br><br></i>This is further illustrated as "unauthenticated public registration data access" and "gated registration data access" on pages 61-62 of the EWG report. Apologies if my paraphrasing led to any confusion.<br><br>
Best, Lisa<br><br><br><br>
At 03:31 PM 4/25/2017, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Content-Language: en-US<br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
boundary="_000_6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E74B23899BRN1WNEXMBX02vc_"<br><br>
Thanks Amr. The second to last bullet under item 3 below says “the EWG recommended that entirely public anonymous access by anyone for any purpose be abandonedâ€. 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 abandonedâ€.<br>
<br>
I invite those who were on the EWG to correct me if I am wrong.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"> mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Amr Elsadr<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 25, 2017 3:50 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><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<br>
<br>
Hello again,<br>
<br>
Apologies for the duplication and any confusion, but some revisions in the Action Items and Notes below. Please disregard the first set.<br>
<br>
Thanks again.<br>
<br>
Amr<br>
<br>
<br><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 here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw">https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw</a><br></i> <br>
Action Items:<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p><ol start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
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
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Working Group members should review the proposed questions to ccTLD operators, and send any feedback on-list prior to next Working Group call
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
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></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <br>
Notes:<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p><ol start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2">
Plan to complete in-progress tasks <o:p></o:p></li></ol><ol start="1" type="1"><ol start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level2 lfo2">
ccTLD questions <o:p></o:p></li></ol></ol><ol start="1" type="1"><ol start="1" type="1"><ul type="square"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2">
Small team has a list of 13 questions for ccTLD Registries <o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2">
Growing list of Registries, seeking contacts to reach out to them <o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2">
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></li></ul></ol></ol><ol start="1" type="1"><ol start="2" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level2 lfo2">
Definition of authoritative <o:p></o:p></li></ol></ol><ol start="1" type="1"><ol start="2" type="1"><ul type="square"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2">
Small team has found the word "authoritative" to be confusing, and is suggesting not using it
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2">
Definition in the DNS context is not useful, conflict between legal and technical use of the word
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2">
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></li></ul></ol></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level2 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">Revised Task 12 sequence and timeline
<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">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><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">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></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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 type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo3">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo3">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo3">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo3">
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></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <br>
-- 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 type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo4">
>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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo4">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo4">
>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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo4">
>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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo4">
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></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <br>
-- 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 type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
>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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
"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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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 aauthenticated 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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo5">
Confirm next meeting date: 2 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC <o:p></o:p></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <br><b> <br>
Meeting Materials (all posted at <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw)">
https://community.icann.org/x/DcPRAw)</a></b> <o:p></o:p></span></p><ol start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986784/RDSPDP-Task12-Revised-21April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1492802630734&api=v2">RDSPDP-Task12-Revised-21April2017.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078605/NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1492802791000&api=v2">NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf</a> - excerpted from
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1492966757152&api=v2">KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.pdf</a> and
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1492966735704&api=v2">
doc</a> <o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078601/ICANN58-Privacy-Panel-Responses-Draft-7April2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1491837560000&api=v2">ICANN58-Privacy-Panel-Responses-Draft-7April2017.pdf</a> and
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078601/ICANN58-Privacy-Panel-Responses-Draft-7April2017.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1491839756000&api=v2">
doc</a> <o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <br>
<br><b>From: </b><<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<br>
<br>
Dear Working Group Members,<br>
<br>
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 “authoritativeâ€.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Amr<br>
<br>
<br>
Action Items:<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p><ol start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo7">
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
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo7">
Working Group members should review the proposed questions to ccTLD operators, and send any feedback on-list prior to next Working Group call
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo7">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo7">
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></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <br>
Notes:<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p><ol start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo8">
Plan to complete in-progress tasks <o:p></o:p></li></ol><ol start="1" type="1"><ul type="circle"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level2 lfo8">
ccTLD questions <o:p></o:p></li></ul></ol><ol start="1" type="1"><ul type="circle"><ul type="square"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level3 lfo8">
Small team has a list of 13 questions for ccTLD Registries <o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level3 lfo8">
Growing list of Registries, seeking contacts to reach out to them <o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level3 lfo8">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level3 lfo8">
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></li></ul></ul></ol><ol start="1" type="1"><ul type="circle"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level2 lfo8">
Definition of authoritative <o:p></o:p></li></ul></ol><ol start="1" type="1"><ul type="circle"><ul type="square"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level3 lfo8">
Small team has found the word "authoritative" to be confusing, and is suggesting not using it
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level3 lfo8">
Definition in the DNS context is not useful, conflict between legal and technical use of the word
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level3 lfo8">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level3 lfo8">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level3 lfo8">
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></li></ul></ul></ol><ol start="2" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo8">
Revised Task 12 sequence and timeline <o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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 type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">
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></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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 type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo10">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo10">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo10">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo10">
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></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <br>
-- 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 type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo11">
>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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo11">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo11">
>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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo11">
>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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo11">
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></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <br>
-- 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 type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
>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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
"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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
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 authenticcated 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></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
Confirm action items and proposed decision points <o:p></o:p></li></ul><ul type="disc"><ul type="circle"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level2 lfo12">
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></li></ul></ul><ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo12">
Confirm next meeting date: 2 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC <o:p></o:p></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <br>
_______________________________________________<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></span></body></html>