[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Feedback on EPDP Form Community Questions

Jonathan Zuck JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org
Mon Dec 24 01:29:11 UTC 2018 

Exactly

Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>

________________________________
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2018 7:26:57 PM
To: Jonathan Zuck; cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
Cc: cpwg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Feedback on EPDP Form Community Questions

I think this is a red herring!  There are at times things that I will not put on a GoogleDoc, but this is so far from them.

If you want an (unrelated) privacy concern, see https://gizmodo.com/the-amazon-alexa-eavesdropping-nightmare-came-true-1831231490 . I am not particularly concerned with the inadvertent leak of the information to the wrong person. I an far more interested in why Amazon is recording and keeping that 100MB of records!

Alan


At 23/12/2018 05:33 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:

Again, I’m having trouble seeing how this compromises the integrity or neutrality of the process. That’s what seems to be a bridge too far. I’m not trying to be dismissive but to seriously understand the context in which making public an already public process (both wiki and email). Is google going to detect who makes which comments and start making us see ads to subtly persuade us to make another choice on DNS policy?

I’ll admit my bias is toward a structured solution that generates some stats that WE can use. But we’re talking about making all such data available via an open data platform eventually so I fail to see how a choice of vendor would spoil the milk. Open to being convinced however.
J

From: "cw at christopherwilkinson.eu" <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Date: Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 11:31 AM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>, "cpwg at icann.org" <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Feedback on EPDP Form Community Questions

Jonathan:

We are addressing, on the one hand,

- profound scepticism as to the activities of the major platforms since the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal.

And on the other hand

- a general awareness of the power of Big Data Algorithms, without being able to comprehend or control them when applied to our public data..

Thus,

(a) I agree with you that there is nothing to stop all and sundry - including the major platforms -  taking down all available public data and processing it as they wish (and they might learn a thing or two in the process), and

(b) in this case, one of the major platforms has been given, by ICANN, precocious and privileged access to our data, in the format of their choosing. Which  - to say the least  - is potentially anti-competitive vis-á vis their competitors, large and small.

And vis-Ã -vis the rest of us, potentially compromises the neutrality and independence of the multi-stakeholder, consensus building process.to which, by our lights we each apply rather a lot of our voluntary time, experience  and expertise.

I suggest that ICANN should think again. Google Docs is not a neutral and independent Application, such as Open-Office or Adobe among others. It appears to be an integral part of a major platform with interests.across the Internet, including the DNS.

CW



On 23 Dec 2018, at 00:34, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:

I must confess I don't find this compelling. Our wiki is not private. If Google wanted they could be scraping that.
Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>

________________________________
From: GTLD-WG < gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com<mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 2:37:13 PM
To: Christopher Wilkinson
Cc: cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Feedback on EPDP Form Community Questions

+1 Christopher




On 19.12.2018, at 17:49, cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Dar Evin, Dear Friends and Colleagues:

Thankyou, Noted. However, this does not really address the issue.

I am not concerned about Google having access to ‘my' personal comments and posting (which I understand I could protect from Google’s prying eyes by using the Word or .pdf forms.)

The issue is that Goggle would have precocious and privileged access to (most of) the ensemble of community comments.

Google is one of a a few major platforms which are interested parties. (a) how can one protect the independence of ICANN’s decisions if one of the major interested parties has prior knowledge of the community’s debates and (b) if Google can have that information only by virtue of offering a ’google forms’ service; what is to prevent the information being shared with Google’s competitors?

> Google … automatically soorts and organises answers to questions…

… which taacitly confirms that significant political and administrative power over EPDP is being transferred to a non-neutral platform.

Regards

CW




On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:12, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu at icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu at icann.org> > wrote:

Dear All,

Further to the AI from today’s CPWG call, please see below feedback on EPDP form community questions.

Thanks to all for productive feedback regarding the form.

Community concern about the Google Form “harvesting all the information” submitted via the form. It was noted ICANN org and community use forms already, but this would be first time for public comment process. The comments are also public, but the concern was Google retention of the data.

Any ALAC members concerned with Google’s retention of data may submit comments by filling out the word version of the form and sending it to At-Large Staffstaff<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org> @atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org> or policy-staff at icann.org<mailto:policy-staff at icann.org>.

Alternatives to the form. It was noted that for some in the world (i.e. in China), Google products are not available. Is there an official alternative submission method? One could use a Word Doc or PDF of the form. In general, the community wanted to know rationale for using Google forms for the whole process, as opposed to a fillable PDF, or Word doc template for comments?


To facilitate offline work, or for those who may not have access to the form, you may download an offline version of the form here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-public-comment-input-form-21nov18-en.docx . Please submit completed forms to At-Large Staff staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org> or policy-staff at icann.org<mailto:policy-staff at icann.org>.

EPDP Leadership chose to utilize Google Forms because Google automatically sorts and organizes answers to questions, which will expedite the process of compiling comments received.

For more information, anyone interested may refer to the EPDP Leadership webinar<https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/2018-11-29+EPDP+Initial+Report+Webinar>, during which the rationale for and explanation of the Google Form is described.

Public visibility of draft mode. It was noted you may save progress on the Google Form, then submit later, but that the saved work was public. This was seen as undesirable by many in the community. Is there a way to not have the draft/saved form public; only have the final submission public?

Commenters have the option of using the word version to work offline and then can complete the Google form when finished. We are not aware of a way to save progress privately on Google Forms.

Concerns with mistakes in the form submission process. The suggested alternative to the above was working from a Word doc, then copying + pasting over. The concern was the potential for mistakes. If mistakes are made on the submission, as is currently done, would it be possible to remove or revise the submission to public comment?

Yes. Commenters are able to edit their previous submission by following prompts in the email they will receive from Google. If the commenter would like to delete a submission, please notify policy-staff at icann.org<mailto:policy-staff at icann.org>, and EPDP Staff Support can assist.

Kind Regards,
Evin

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg


_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg




_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20181224/cb2a0ce7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CPWG mailing list