[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] [Ext] Re: Notes and action items - RDA Scoping Team Meeting #11 - 23 December 2021
Steve Crocker
steve at shinkuro.com
Mon Jan 3 15:02:08 UTC 2022
Thanks!
Steve
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 7:01 AM Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
wrote:
> My apologies, Steve.
>
>
>
> The outstanding action is for *ISPCP, NCSG, and BC*. As you noted, SSAC
> has already submitted its gap analysis.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Caitlin
>
>
>
> *From: *Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 3, 2022 at 8:52 AM
> *To: *Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org>, "
> steve at shinkuro.com" <steve at shinkuro.com>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Notes and action items - RDA
> Scoping Team Meeting #11 - 23 December 2021
>
>
>
> Caitlin,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your note. SSAC's contribution to the gap analysis was
> submitted many days ago, so I'm puzzled that you say it hasn't been
> submitted.
>
>
>
> I've also been thinking about gaps in a somewhat broader sense. The
> attached Gap Roster is for the group to consider. It's intended to be a
> repository for all of the gaps, issues, etc. We're going to put this into
> Google docs so the community can contribute on a continuous basis. An
> immediate next step is to make sure each of the questions, issues, etc. in
> your note are included.
>
>
>
> A few more words about the gap roster. I'm using "gap" in broadly than
> usual. A lot of the same issues keep coming up, not only within the
> Accuracy Scoping Team discussions but throughout the entire registration
> data directory system policy development process.
>
> Rather than attempting to resolve the various long-standing issues, I
> think it will be helpful to everyone to keep track of and document the
> long-standing differences in objectives. Gaps of this sort are not going
> to be resolved by the constrained processes we're engaged in. Nonetheless,
> I think it's important to be forthright about the unresolved issues instead
> of trying to rule them out of order.
>
> Not all of the gaps are large and sticky. Some are much smaller and more
> likely to be resolved.
>
>
>
> The ground rules for this roster are to focus on content, not the motives
> of others, and to keep the descriptions concise. Include pointers to
> supporting or lengthier material if needed. We will curate to
> merge duplicates but not to lose important distinctions, and to keep it
> tight and manageable.
>
>
>
> The goal is to keep the larger issues in view while being clear about
> which issues are resolved and which ones will continue to be outstanding.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 6:22 AM Caitlin Tubergen <
> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear RDA Scoping Team Members,
>
>
>
> Please find below the notes and action items from the last meeting on
> Thursday, December 23 at 14:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> Happy New Year to all!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika, Berry, and Caitlin
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Action Items*
>
> 1. GAC Representatives to come prepared to answer questions raised
> during the meeting on Thursday, 23 December.
> 2. Question for ICANN org: Is the list provided at this link (https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used
> [whois.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used__;!!PtGJab4!oB-lO5Gp8NHUdjQ3UzSXlE4XHICz_X8vVtxLiNCnYi4x01_V2BbhmtQgKL2KpUllXFkvPhzoTRA$>)
> still relevant?
> 3. STILL OUTSTANDING: Groups who have not provided input for the Gap
> Analysis (ISPCP, NCSG, SSAC) to do so ASAP or inform Leadership if their
> group does not intend to do so.
>
>
>
> *Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #11*
>
> Thursday 23 December at 14.00 UTC
>
>
>
> 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes)
>
>
> 1. Status of questions to ICANN org
>
>
> - Questions have been transmitted to the appropriate subject matter
> experts, including compliance, legal, etc. Org will endeavor to provide
> responses to questions by 13 January (the second scoping team meeting in
> the new year).
>
>
> 1. Vice-chair appointment – any further input?
>
>
> - In response to Marc A’s message, Rafik served as vice chair and GNSO
> Council liaison during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Additionally, the role of chair
> for this scoping team was not heavily sought after. Unlike EPDP Phase 1 and
> 2, which delivered binding policy recommendations, this group will not.
> - Response: With respect to Rafik as vice-chair in EPDP, others
> had concerns with that also, particularly because Rafik ultimately had to
> step into the role of chair, and it’s not ideal to wear the hats of chair
> and liaison simultaneously. There are other options the group should
> consider, including requesting a vice chair from the GNSO Council.
>
>
> 1. Gap Analysis (50 minutes)
>
>
> 1. Continue review of input received from scoping team:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit[docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit__;!!PtGJab4!ome3kaoSrFqyTp3jQrNfsZ37N-C-TJ7VMAthKmqvTP8is9oe2FRXl4E4lvUwBJulwWvMHWkBbow$>
>
>
> - ALAC Gap Analysis:
> - The current goal of accuracy is the one embodied in the RAA,
> and this has a long history associated with it. The goal going into the
> discussion of the accuracy specification is to improve accuracy. Both the
> NORC and the accuracy study showed there was a significant accuracy issue
> that needed to be fixed.
> - The RAA is a bilateral negotiation between ICANN and
> registrars, and what came out of it was – “we agree to do some, but not
> all”. For example, the AFAV requirements have still not been implemented.
> - This is only a partial solution, and the original goal was not
> met, and the requirements detailed in the Whois Accuracy Spec are still not
> being enforced today.
> - In terms of the goals that were not met, could ALAC articulate
> the goals that were laid out and not met?
> - To make something accurate, is to make something useful and
> facilitate contact. Some level of verification that this will facilitate
> contact should be required.
> - Concerned about claims of no accuracy, while the WAPS did
> provide improvements.
> - Indeed, there was an improvement with the introduction of the
> WAPS. By way of example of something the WAPS did not do: registrars are
> required to verify either the phone or email address, but there is no flag
> added to RDDS to indicate which field was ultimately verified/usable.
> - Dispute that the WAPS was not effective; if you were to review
> the ARS reports, it showed accuracy levels significantly improve. Over 90%
> of domain names were contactable by at least one field (phone, email,
> postal address), and a majority were contactable in all three. Adding a
> flag in the RDDS would be a gargantuan task and a large expense.
> - Did not say that the WAPS was not effective at doing
> something. Believe for 70-80% of domain names at least one field that was
> not accurate. While 95% of names had an accurate field, it was unclear to
> others which field was actually accurate. Understand that information is
> maintained in terms of which field was actually verified.
> - The primary goal of this group is to gather objective facts.
> Could Rys or Rrs document changes to their systems, for example, the
> Chinese real name verification – could CPs give an idea of the magnitude of
> what was done for these changing requirements? This could be helpful for
> the Council to make an informed determination.
> - Request to put specific questions to stakeholder groups in
> writing. When it comes to costing, it is very unlikely that registries will
> share costing.
> - The 2013 RAA is almost 9 years old, and the cybercrime world
> has changed very significantly since 2013.
> - The RAA requires all contact details to be validated at some
> degree.
> - Believe that this verification should be done by an external
> body.
> - GAC Gap Analysis [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit__;!!PtGJab4!oB-lO5Gp8NHUdjQ3UzSXlE4XHICz_X8vVtxLiNCnYi4x01_V2BbhmtQgKL2KpUllXFkvO4ExEk8$>:
> read into the record
> - May be worth more follow-up when GAC colleagues have returned
> – the goal in the group’s charter is to fully capture the current state.
> It’s difficult to go forward with work without a firm understanding of what
> accuracy is. This is a red flag that requires further work – the group
> should be convinced of what the current state is.
> - The purposes for processing listed here is not the same as the
> EPDP Phase 1 approved purposes
> - Question to ICANN org – Is the list provided at this link (
> https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used
> [whois.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used__;!!PtGJab4!oB-lO5Gp8NHUdjQ3UzSXlE4XHICz_X8vVtxLiNCnYi4x01_V2BbhmtQgKL2KpUllXFkvPhzoTRA$>)
> still relevant?
> - Citing SAC 058, which predates the 2013 RAA, may not be
> relevant anymore.
> - Any study that samples data, whether a SAC report or another
> report, raises the question of what it looks like today. Perhaps putting
> forward a nomenclature for accuracy, whether it is recognized as coming
> from this paper or not, would be helpful.
> - The question the scoping team should ask – whether this is
> being met, rather than it is unclear that it is being met. Need to look at
> this from a perspective: it is not being met, and here is the evidence to
> show this. Or, there is nothing showing it is not being met. It’s easier to
> prove a positive rather than a negative.
> - A significant part of ICANN’s ability to check accuracy,
> except on a case-by-case complaint basis, is that ICANN does not have
> access to the data.
> - 7.3.2 of the RAA – registrars shall abide by applicable laws
> and governmental regulations – the only time this was seen by ICANN is when
> registrars would say that something could not be done because it was
> prohibited by local law
> - Can GAC reps please explain what they mean by “a more holistic
> interpretation of the RAA”?
> - Without looking at new data, cannot verify that this
> conjecture is correct
> - Where numbers are cited, the source should also be cited.
> - Call into question the InterIsle numbers
> - The claim that there is a large amount of data that is not
> validated is simply incorrect. Would like to see numbers that showcase an
> interest in domain name registered more than ten years ago.
> - Next steps: With respect to the first part of the Gap
> Analysis, specifically questions 1 and 2, the ways in which data can or
> should be gathered to demonstrate whether or not certain requirements are
> being met. Some have claimed CPs should provide data, some said ICANN org
> or a third party should obtain the data. Through some of this data
> gathering, the team already receive information that could inform 3 and 4.
>
>
> 1. Scoping team input
> 2. Confirm next steps
>
>
>
> 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 6 January at 14.00
> UTC)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list
> GNSO-Accuracy-ST at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220103/03e3b9a3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-Accuracy-ST
mailing list