<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"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-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;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Revisiting the tentative agreements each time a member wants to do so would risk extending the time needed for completing our work considerably and would be unfair to those
who spent considerable time contributing to the initial decision. That said, we call them ‘tentative agreements’ to make it clear that they can be revisited before we finalize them in our initial report and after we have completed our recommendations for
the requirements related to the first five questions of our charter.<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"> gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Keating<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:27 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Lisa Phifer <lisa@corecom.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Question on April/May update doc, 'initial points of rough consensus' #14<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lisa,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Well,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Im extremely impressed at your ability to document how to find this. I could never have accomplished it.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">But perhaps we can more succinctly document agreements along the way in a single document with each item of agreement coupled with citations? That way everyone has the same access you have carefully described.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">And, since we are now going to discuss what should and should not be included in TD, perhaps the agreements will need revision.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Sent from my iPad<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On 9 Jun 2017, at 00:01, Lisa Phifer <<a href="mailto:lisa@corecom.com">lisa@corecom.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Tim,<br>
<br>
In general, to find the deliberation leading to any WG agreement, check the first page of the working document to identify the date of the call which produced the agreement. Consult the wiki page for that meeting to review notes, transcript, and recordings.
Often it is helpful to review the previous or following meeting too, since agreements proposed in one call are polled on after that call and revisited in the next call.<br>
<br>
Here, WG Agreement #14 is located in section 4.1 of the working document. As noted on the first page of the working document, agreements from the 14 February call were added to section 4.1. The meeting page for the 14 February call is found here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/2017-02-14+Next+Gen+RDS+PDP+Working+Group">
https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/2017-02-14+Next+Gen+RDS+PDP+Working+Group<br>
<br>
</a>Consulting the 14 February meeting page, this proposed agreement was discussed under agenda item 3) Continue deliberation on the Privacy charter question. You can read deliberation leading to this agreement in the transcript:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64065654/transcript%20RDS%2014%20Feb%202017.pdf">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64065654/transcript%20RDS%2014%20Feb%202017.pdf</a> , or play back the MP3 recording. The bulk of this meeting covered data protection principles around purpose specification; the meeting concluded with a "red
X green check" test of support for this proposed WG agreement. Given support from those on the call, the proposed agreement was tested in this poll:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64069381/SummaryResults-Poll-on-Privacy-from-14FebCall.pdf">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64069381/SummaryResults-Poll-on-Privacy-from-14FebCall.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>
Poll results are always discussed the following week; see the notes, transcript, and recording of the 22 February call, found here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/2017-02-22+Next+Gen+RDS+PDP+Working+Group">
https://community.icann.org/display/gTLDRDS/2017-02-22+Next+Gen+RDS+PDP+Working+Group</a> . In this case, notes indicate that poll respondents supported the agreement 11:2, with some further discussion.<br>
<br>
I hope you find this helpful to find and review this WG's deliberation leading to rough consensus on WG Agreement #14.<br>
<br>
Additionally, you note below "I'm challenged in understanding how the EWG concluded that, pertaining to only thin whois, this statement #14 is relevant or even accurate."
<br>
<br>
To be clear, the EWG didn't. The EWG never deliberated on WG agreement #14, or even on thin data. The EWG's mandate was to re-examine and define the purpose of collecting and maintaining registration data, consider how to safeguard the data, and propose a next-generation
solution to better server the needs of the global Internet community. Excerpts from the EWG Report are included in our working document as a starting point to inform this WG's deliberation. However, as you note, usually those excerpts touch on non-thin data
because the EWG never cut the problem into "thin" and "thick" as this WG has done. It was this WG that formulated Agreement #14 as a proposed answer to this WG's charter question on Privacy, reframed to focus on "thin data" only.<br>
<br>
Best, Lisa<br>
<br>
<br>
At 04:19 PM 6/7/2017, Chen, Tim wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Chuck,<br>
<br>
Not meaning to start a long thread here, but copying the RDS WG in case anyone else has a comment.<br>
<br>
I reviewed the recently routed <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59644409/Next%20Generation%20RDS%20PDP%20-%20Newsletter%20-%20April-May%202017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1496694757381&api=v2">
April/May update newsletter</a>. Thank you to the person or people who worked to put that together, it was a useful summary.<br>
<br>
My question regards item #14 in the initial points of rough consensus, found on Page 3 of that document. For reference here is what it says:<br>
<br>
"For thin data only, do existing gTLD registration directory services policies sufficiently address compliance with applicable data protection, privacy and free speech laws about purpose?<br>
#14. Â <i>Existing gTLD RDS policies do NOT sufficiently address compliance with applicable data protection, privacy, and free speech laws about purpose.</i>"<br>
<br>
First I want to note that I engaged in this WG around the time of Copenhagen so I'm very open to you pointing me to something that I may have missed prior, or some poll that I missed along the way.<br>
<br>
But I have no recall of when we agreed that this was a 'rough consensus'. It strikes me that a lot of the dialogue on this WG recently has been about how thin data is not where we need to be fighting the privacy battle, and more specifically there are foundational
reasons today's thin data is necessary in an open and ungated protocol. Â <br>
<br>
I went to the linked "31 May, 2017 Working Draft on Key Concepts, Deliberation document" (see Page 2) and navigated to Section 4.1 on page 15. A lot of that referred text from the EWG is talking about "contact information" and such things only found in thick
whois. I'm challenged in understanding how the EWG concluded that, pertaining to only thin whois, this statement #14 is relevant or even accurate. Maybe there is something specific to the words 'about purpose' at the end of the statement that I am not
comprehending well. <br>
<br>
Thank you in advance for any context you (or anyone else) can provide.<br>
<br>
-Tim Chen<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></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<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></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>