<p dir="ltr">Thanks Lisa for this update.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Dear all, apologies for being absent at the meeting. A delayed flight did not allow me to arrive on time in a connected area.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
@__f_f__</p>
<p dir="ltr">PhD Candidate, Universität der Bundeswehr München<br>
Computer Security | Internet of Things<br>
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf">https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf</a><br>
________________________________.<br>
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Le 23 mai 2017 9:12 PM, "Lisa Phifer" <<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com">lisa@corecom.com</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_6343468185352181203WordSection1"><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#333333;font-weight:normal">Dear all,<u></u><u></u></span></strong></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#333333;font-weight:normal">Below please find notes from today’s RDS PDP WG meeting.<u></u><u></u></span></strong></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#333333;font-weight:normal">To recap action items from today’s call:<u></u><u></u></span></strong></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Staff to add above WG Agreement to Working Draft</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Staff to develop poll to test one or more proposed alternatives for DoR definition. All WG members to participate in poll by COB Saturday 27 May.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Rod Rasmussen and Vaibhav Aggarwal to complete action assigned during 17 May call and be prepared to discuss this at next WG call.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Leadership team to develop question(s) for this week’s poll to further advance this discussion, including a rewording of EWG principle 41.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#333333;font-weight:normal">Best regards,</span></strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#333333"><br><strong><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-weight:normal">Lisa</span></strong></span><strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-weight:normal"><u></u><u></u></span></strong></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#333333"><u></u> <u></u></span></strong></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#333333">Notes RDS PDP WG Meeting – 23 May 2017:</span></strong><u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><em><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#333333">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/HsPRAw" target="_blank"><span style="font-style:normal">https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>HsPRAw</span></a></span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></em></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">1) Roll Call/SOI Updates</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Attendance will be taken from AC<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Please remember to state your name before speaking and remember to mute your microphones when not speaking<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">SOI updates: none<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">2) Review poll results to finalize those WG agreements: <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/AnnotatedResults-Poll-from-17MayCall.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">AnnotatedResults-<wbr>Poll-from-17MayCall.pdf</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">Q2 - Rough consensus on WG Agreement: “gTLD registration "thin data" should be accessible without requestor identification, authentication, or stated purpose.”<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">85% supported this statement<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Two comments from those who disagreed pertained to specification of purpose - see discussion on subquestion 5.4 below<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Staff to add above WG Agreement to Working Draft<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">Q3 - 80% support for reworded purpose and definition of Data of Record, with 5 comments from those who disagreed<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Footnoted definition: "The data set at a given time relevant to a given registration object that expresses the data provided in the then-current registration for that object."<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Concern expressed: DoR doesn't have the concept of authoritative source - if there are several places you can go to get data, this is the one you rely on as a trusted source<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">In a thin registry today, there are multiple places to get the data - some generated by registry, some supplied by registrar. We shouldn't build this architecture into RDS requirements - definition refers instead to "then-current registration for object" independent of location of storage, as it is not a statement about where data is stored or legal authority. Those are important things to consider but should be separated from the concept embodied by this definition.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Another concern: Couldn't there be more than one such data set meeting this definition? E.g., the data held by registry may be different than data held by registrar? (and still be current)<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">This is the information we take to be correct data (not accurate, but correct when resolving differences between multiple/cached copies of data, or protecting against MitM insertion, etc.).<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">For example, DNSSEC provides integrity protection for DNS records (detects unintended or unauthorized modification, etc., but does not prove that DNS records are accurate). We way something here to provide something similar for registration data, to prove it is official.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Ultimately, Whois cannot be relied upon legally as it may be out of date, false, stolen, proxied, etc.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Proposed alternative: "information provided during the last update/create interaction"<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Data provide by who? If the data exists at both registrar and registry, which is the DoR? Need to disambiguate which data is meant.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Another proposed alternative: "The data you would get for each datum if you were to ask the source of that datum"<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Does the concept of "provenance" capture the concept intended?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Possible alternative terms: "definitive data" or data "considered as authoritative"<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Could we live with "data of record" now and refine the definition during policy development, and then re-addressed during implementation of that policy?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">See Greg Aaron's comments, further expanded on list: <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/2017-May/003189.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">http://mm.icann.org/<wbr>pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/<wbr>2017-May/003189.html</span></a>, including what objects are being referred to by this definition<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">We are trying to express the concept of integrity of data, as data moves from origin through system as a whole<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Possible alternative: Data set that, at a given time, is asserted to match the data acquired at its point of origin<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Possible WG Agreement (to be polled on): DoR = Data set that, at a given time, can be proven to match the data supplied at the origin for each data element<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Staff to develop poll to test one or more proposed alternatives for DoR definition. All WG members to participate in poll by COB Saturday 27 May.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">3) Complete deliberation on the charter question: What steps should be taken to control "thin data" access?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">See <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/RDSPDP-Handout-For23MayCall.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">RDSPDP-Handout-<wbr>For23MayCall.pdf</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">a. Update from Rod Rasmussen and Vaibhav Aggarwal on what "unreasonably restrict legitimate access" means in the following WG Agreement:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">There must be no RDS policies that prevent RDS operators from applying operational controls such as rate limiting and CAPTCHA, provided that they do not unreasonably restrict legitimate access."<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Update not yet drafted.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Rod Rasmussen and Vaibhav Aggarwal to complete action assigned during 17 May call and be prepared to discuss this at next WG call.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">b. Review all of charter question 5 subquestions with goal to complete first pass deliberation on "thin data" access in May<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Refer to slides 2-4 of <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/RDSPDP-Handout-For23MayCall.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">RDSPDP-Handout-<wbr>For23MayCall.pdf</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">Slide 3: Charter Subquestions 5.1 through 5.4<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Leadership team has provided possible answers to the subquestions - answers based on rough consensus WG Agreements already reached via WG calls and poll results<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Have all of these subquestions been sufficiently addressed by WG agreements for "thin data" access? If not, which subquestions need further deliberation?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Subquestion 5.2: Are queries consisting of a single look-up to be treated the same as bulk look-ups? <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">"Levels of access" is not meant to refer to access to a large or small quantity of records. It refers to tiered or differentiated access, as opposed to simply public access<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Subquestion 5.4 requires further deliberation during next call<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">Slide 4: For Charter Subquestion 5.5<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Subset of EWG principles on access were selected to assist in answering this question - other EWG principles on access are thought to be more relevant to questions to be addressed later<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Principles highlighted in yellow may apply to "thin data" – 41, 44, and 45 first bullet only<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">Regarding principle 45 bullet one, concerns expressed about “stated purpose”<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">LEAs may be reluctant to state a purpose so as not to tip off someone to an active investigation<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">"Stated purpose" in first bullet of principle 45 is not meant to refer to the purpose of the requestor - as not to conflict with poll question/tentative WG agreement - the policy will be required to state a purpose for public access to "thin data"<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">Regarding principle 41, concerns expressed about phrase “most stringent privacy regime”<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">recommendations should be compliant with applicable laws<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Proposed rewording of first bullet of principle 45: All data elements must be based on a purpose stated in policy<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Should "most stringent privacy regime" be dropped or replaced by "most stringent applicable privacy regime"<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Issue of compliance with applicable privacy regimes should be addressed in its own principle, not mixed in with principles addressing other issues<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Compliance with applicable stringent privacy regimes could be via exceptions to the policy instead of it being the norm<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">For context: The EWG added "most stringent privacy regime" to principle 41 to avoid conflict between this principle and privacy principles on compliance with applicable laws which recommended a rules engine to hide data elements that cannot be lawfully displayed in a given jurisdiction<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Also let’s not assume the future RDS will be full of personal domain name registrations and personal contact data. It will contain commercial domain name registrations also with contact data that are not subject to data protection laws defined by "stringent privacy regimes"<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">When commercial registrations are made, some contacts (such as tech contact) may still constitute personal data<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Are there privacy regimes stringent to the extent that they would prohibit public access to "thin data" or a minimum set of data elements?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">A scenario of an extreme privacy/data protection regime that would prohibit publication of a minimal set of data elements required in order for a domain name to resolve (such as "thin data") could prevent the domain name from actually working?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">When considering privacy regimes, the regime needs to be considered in its entirety, including not only constraints on publication, but also exceptions that may be applicable<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Leadership team to develop question(s) for this week’s poll to further advance this discussion, including a rewording of EWG principle 41<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">4) Resume deliberation on the charter questions on Purpose and Data Elements for "thin data" only (time permitting):<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">See <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078512/Merged-ThinDataPurposes-v1.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">https://community.icann.<wbr>org/download/attachments/<wbr>64078512/Merged-<wbr>ThinDataPurposes-v1.pdf</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Deferred to 30 May Call: Examine purposes for each "thin data" element<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333">5) Confirm action items and proposed decision points<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">WG Agreement:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> “gTLD registration "thin data" should be accessible without requestor identification, authentication, or stated purpose.”<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Staff to add above WG Agreement to Working Draft<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Staff to develop poll to test one or more proposed alternatives for DoR definition. All WG members to participate in poll by COB Saturday 27 May.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Rod Rasmussen and Vaibhav Aggarwal to complete action assigned during 17 May call and be prepared to discuss this at next WG call.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">Action Item:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Leadership team to develop question(s) for this week’s poll to further advance this discussion, including a rewording of EWG principle 41.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><span style="color:#333333"> 6) Confirm next meeting date: 30 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.5pt;background:white"><b><span style="color:#333333">Note:</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> Those attending <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/jBXfAw" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">newcomer tutorial</span></a> can remain in AC room when WG meeting ends<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_6343468185352181203p4" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#333333">Meeting Materials (all posted at <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/HsPRAw" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight:normal">https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>HsPRAw</span></a></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">)</span><u></u><u></u></strong></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/RDSPDP-Handout-For23MayCall.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1495547541000&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">RDSPDP-Handout-For23MayCall.<wbr>pdf</span></a></span></b><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078512/Merged-ThinDataPurposes-v1.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>download/attachments/64078512/<wbr>Merged-ThinDataPurposes-v1.pdf</span></a></span></b><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-9May2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1494372838376&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">KeyConceptsDeliberation-<wbr>WorkingDraft-9May2017.pdf</span></a> </span></b><span style="color:#333333">and <b><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-9May2017.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1494372853897&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none"><wbr>doc</span></a></b><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:#333333"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="color:#333333">17 May Call Poll Results -</span></b><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:"Courier New";color:#333333"><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">PDF of Poll Questions:<b> <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078620/Poll-from-17MayCall.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1495026529000&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">Poll-from-<wbr>17MayCall.pdf</span></a></b><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:"Courier New";color:#333333"><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">Annotated Poll Results: <b><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/AnnotatedResults-Poll-from-17MayCall.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1495473776000&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">AnnotatedResults-<wbr>Poll-from-17MayCall.pdf</span></a></b> (for display during call)<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:"Courier New";color:#333333"><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">SurveyMonkey Summary Poll Results: <b><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/SummaryResults-Poll-from-17MayCall.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1495382647000&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">SummaryResults-Poll-<wbr>from-17MayCall.pdf</span></a></b><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;background:white"><u></u><span style="font-family:"Courier New";color:#333333"><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#333333">SurveyMonkey Raw Data Poll Results: <b><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/RawDataResults-Poll-from-17MayCall.zip?version=1&modificationDate=1495382667000&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">RawDataResults-Poll-<wbr>from-17MayCall.zip</span></a></b> and <b><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078622/RawDataResults-Poll-from-17MayCall.xls?version=1&modificationDate=1495382724000&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3b73af;text-decoration:none">XLS</span></a></b><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#333333"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></blockquote></div>