[council] Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps
Carlton Samuels
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon May 10 18:50:14 UTC 2021
Dear All:
For as long as I've caucused in the names and numbers policy arena, I am
left perplexed by this kerfuffle on data accuracy.
Yes, I know we don't much like the term regulation in context. But can we
all agree on the purpose of collecting registration data in the domain name
business is for identification and, largely, for access to registrants? The
basic objective: authoritatively connecting that virtual real estate to a
person and/or place.
Considering that we are agreed on purpose, might we also agree that if the
data we collect for registration is inaccurate, it defeats the
purposeful collection and is thus, immeasurably useless? I think we all
agree that in the context of domain registration, the tricky bit is
unerringly connecting a virtual property to a unique physical place and/or
person.
If we agree what we are talking about is conformity to a standard or model
*and* to truth, the struggle is to come to a common agreement that the
difference between an observed value and an accepted reference value is
negligible. Moreover, that small difference will not impact our collective
ability to identity or to connect to the registrant.
Much of that lies in the truth component of what we label as accuracy. It
appears that it is easier to strike acceptance when it is a deviation from
the standard or model. But not from the truth. So in the context of domain
registration, it seems like we need a fuzzy model for determining
accuracy.
The standard and model for an email address is well known. Indeed most data
collections verify for standard format soon as it is offered. But in
service of connection - meaning it is delivered to a virtual mailbox and a
person retrieves the message - that conforming email address is less than
useful. It does not conform to truth.
We know that the Universal Postal Union (UPU) has a standard and model for
international postal addresses; UPU S42. And if I gave my address as Robin
Hood, Esq., Tree 99, Limb 5, Sherwood Forest NG21 9QB, I could likely get a
snail mail delivered. But, could it pass the truth test?
Meaning is often vested in numbers. Technology as a disrupter makes the
meaning invested in telephone numbers transient. So, for example,
referencing the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), there was a time I
could tell someone's approximate location from the first 3 digits of a
telephone number; 415 says you were in San Francisco, CA and 416 says
Ontario Province, Canada. Nowadays I have a number that conforms to the
NANP that used to convey I'm in New Jersey but rings in my yard
in Kingston, Jamaica. "Truthiness" now has a defined value.
I say for registration purposes we need a fuzzy model. And that fuzzy
model should be vested with a risk we can all agree is acceptable.
Thereafter, figure a way to charge a risk premium.
Carlton
==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 12:10 PM Marie Pattullo - AIM via council <
council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for this and for your input, Jeff and Kurt. The perspective of
> the BC:
>
>
>
> - We are keen for this work to be productive on a practical level (how
> to promote/ensure accurate data) and to start as soon as possible.
> - We should not confuse the establishment of a scoping team with the
> charter for a PDP: the whole point is that a cross-community group of
> experts should come together to look at what we have, what (if any) other
> resources/studies are needed and propose the way forward. There is no need
> to impose rigid charter-like questions; the experts may have other
> experience-based views that we have not considered.
> - We have a different understanding as to the proposed study, further
> to both the draft text and our Extraordinary meeting: whether we need such
> a study, and what it should address, should be defined by the scoping team.
> That team would start by considering all of the resources we already have
> about accuracy, both to come to agreement on what our next steps should be
> and to avoid duplication, and after that they can decide if there are gaps
> or questions that such a study could address.
> - While we agree that RDS data accuracy’s definition would be one of
> the most important aspects of the scoping group’s work, we caution against
> this work being limited to definition. Once defined we also need to do
> something about it: “we have measured the data and x% is inaccurate” is not
> the end goal.
> - We don’t think that we need to have more lengthy discussions at
> Council level. The issue of accuracy has been bubbling for years, as the
> GAC rightly says way before the GDPR. It was to be addressed in Phase 1 of
> the EPDP but has been repeatedly pushed back and if we do not address it,
> legislation will do so for us, creating yet more jurisdictional
> fragmentation. We reiterate that the scoping team should be formed and be
> allowed to start its work as soon as possible – they are the experts and
> the whole idea is to ask experts where we are and how we move forward, and
> yet another Council-level discussion will, in our view, only lead to
> unnecessary delay.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Kurt
> Pritz via council
> *Sent:* Friday, 7 May 2021 04:45
> *To:* philippe.fouquart <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-SECS <gnso-secs at icann.org>; GNSO Council List <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps
>
>
>
> Hi Philippe:
>
> Thank you for providing the draft set of proposed next steps for dealing
> with the topic of registration data accuracy. We (RYSG Council
> representatives) have read the proposal and associated documentation and
> consulted with our stakeholder group members and leadership.
>
> First, we wish you to confirm that the Proposed Path Forward is intended
> to be the “framework” described and recommended in the recent ICANN
> briefing (i.e., “develop a framework for a study on how to measure
> accuracy”). After reading the documents furnished, that was the conclusion
> to which we came.
>
> Keeping with the ICANN briefing recommendation to “commission a study on
> how accuracy of registration data might be measured,” we believe
> the Proposed Path Forward is too vague to be released as is. I.e., the
> proposal provides inadequate direction to the working group (which is
> likely to cause confusion and be perceived as disrespectful of volunteers’
> time). Put another way, the proposal initiates the study but does not
> describe the scope of the work to be done.
>
> For example, the proposal calls for the scoping team to focus on,
> “identifying what problems, if any, are expected to be addressed and how,”
> but nowhere describes to what the problems should pertain other than
> “accuracy,” with no other detail or direction.
>
> Instead, the objective and terms of reference should be clearly
> delineated. Recognizing our commitment to fact-based policy
> development, the proposal should make clear that we are seeking to
> formulate an approach to data registration accuracy measurement first – and
> that any policy discussion will follow (because policy should be informed
> by data and facts derived from competently done studies). The “problems”
> identified should be those specifically related to how accuracy
> of registration data might be measured.
>
> In addition, we think it necessary to expressly include registration data
> accuracy definitions in the scoping team’s remit. How can one design an
> approach to registration data accuracy measurement without defining that
> which is to be measured?
>
> The proposal refers extensively to GDPR and NIS2. Most of these could be
> omitted. The proposal seeks to assess how best to measure accuracy, which
> we think is an objective matter, and not seek to interpret and
> implement statutory requirements, which is a policy discussion that should
> occur when the factual assessments are complete. (We do note the proposal’s
> brief inference that the GDPR Accuracy Principle is essentially satisfied
> by the current actions of the contracted parties.)
>
> Regarding timing, the call for volunteers should be published after the
> close of work on the EPDP for Registration Data. This scoping effort will
> require the expertise of EPDP participants because it is likely that one of
> the problems to be addressed is how or whether personal data can be
> processed to accomplish a registration data accuracy assessment.
> In addition, the topic of registration data accuracy continues to be raised
> in the EPDP discussions and that should be exhausted before going on to a
> subsequent effort on the same topic.
>
> We also believe the composition or casting of the working group should be
> more carefully considered. The specification of “two from each” stakeholder
> group seems arbitrary and merits additional discussion.
>
> To correct these concerns, we propose to have a substantive discussion at
> the Council level, and then create a small team of Council members (or form
> a “working-group-of-the-whole”) to redraft the proposed framework,
> an effort we will gladly support.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Maxim Alzoba
> Sebastien Ducos
> Kurt Pritz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2021, at 2:43 PM, philippe.fouquart--- via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
>
>
> Following our extraordinary meeting on 8 April 2021, Council leadership,
> with the support of the GNSO Support Staff, has worked together to develop
> a set of proposed next steps for dealing with the topic of accuracy. The
> proposed next steps aim to find a balance between the different viewpoints
> that have been expressed on this topic while at the same time recognizing
> our commitment to fact-based policy development. The Council leadership’s
> expectation is that by focusing on identifying and confirming the
> problem(s) (if any), the scoping team will be in a much better position to
> recommend to the Council what next steps to take.
>
>
>
> We would like to request that you review the attached document with your
> respective groups and indicate *by Friday 7 May at the latest* if you
> have any significant concerns or objections about the proposed next steps.
>
>
>
> If no concerns or objections are raised, Council leadership will include
> formal confirmation of these next steps on the consent agenda for the
> Council meeting on 20 May 2021.
>
>
>
> We would also like to request Jeffrey, as the Council liaison to the GAC,
> to share this message with his GAC point of contact for the GAC’s
> information, making clear that this document is still subject to change, as
> the GAC has expressed interest in this topic in its recent engagements with
> the GNSO Council.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pam, Tanya & Philippe
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
>
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>
> Thank you.
>
> <Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps - 23 April 2021.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFAg&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=eKUxmgsVmOm8t0ie_17sBbRQFRMaduKLJTinJPAvqdE&m=pBahcXw2w1DVET_GPfuCA9S7R2zMpTyC9Oe93B1WO9Y&s=yw_GePGN838iGOSHK8RBAfpjjetrSwrhDBBLwKMFTiM&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFAg&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=eKUxmgsVmOm8t0ie_17sBbRQFRMaduKLJTinJPAvqdE&m=pBahcXw2w1DVET_GPfuCA9S7R2zMpTyC9Oe93B1WO9Y&s=hJ9gjIRWdPCUNJT_6yo1CqKsaY1R4M1DLP8bT6LisQ0&e=>)
> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFAg&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=eKUxmgsVmOm8t0ie_17sBbRQFRMaduKLJTinJPAvqdE&m=pBahcXw2w1DVET_GPfuCA9S7R2zMpTyC9Oe93B1WO9Y&s=QUW5A2sMFJyP9VzCoyJ7CvKf-jK8K8manHfmTb8jTfg&e=>).
> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210510/b732e897/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the council
mailing list