[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting

[Michael Palage]

Hello All,

 

I am looking forward to a productive ICANN73 public session tomorrow.  

 

I spent the past several days trying to digest all of the exchanges that took place last Thursday. While I think we are close to wrapping up our work on Assignments 1 & 2, I think it would be constructive to quickly level set and make sure we are all on the same page to minimize potential future confusion. 

 

Part of my level setting involved going back to the original GNSO Council’s charge to the Scoping Team which asked is there “an agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations.” See https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+Team 

 

This task at first blush seems simple enough, but as we have learned there have been several concerns raised in connection with the use of the term “definition” and the meaning of “accuracy.” Therefore, instead of using the term “definition” as proposed by the GNSO Council I propose that we use the phrase “current contractual requirements and enforcement construct.” I believe this should meet the concerns of the RrSG that have repeatedly raised concerns about “providing a definition” and the concerns of the GAC and others about how a definition might bias future discussions.

 

Is there any objection to us using the phrase “current contractual requirements and enforcement construct?”  If so please explain your objection and proposed alternative suggestion.

 

Next we need to tackle what I have deemed the accuracy conundrum. The intervention by Stephanie this past week reminded me of some previous research that I was doing which I decided to revisit. I think Stephanie hit the nail on the head when she talked about how “accuracy” to most people conveys a binary choice, e.g. the data is accurate or is the data inaccurate.  It is a black or white answer with no room for grey. In fact this seemed to align closely with the RrSG proposed “current contractual requirements and enforcement construct.” If the data collected meets syntactical validation and either the email or phone number was operationally verified, then the data provided by the Registrant was “accurate” per their interpretation of the 2013 RAA.

 

So I decided to spend a couple of hours researching the definition and origins of the word “accuracy” online and with an old school trip to the local library. I believe this definition of the word “accuracy” best describes the conundrum that we as a group find ourselves. 

 

noun, plural 

1.           the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.

2.           Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def. 6).

3.           Mathematics. the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def. 5).

 

Source Dictionary.com

 

Now the first definition “being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect” is a rather high bar, particularly if you are applying this bar to all registration data elements processed like some working group members have advocated. However, that bar is substantially lower if free from defect simply means that the data collected by the Registrar was syntactically correct and a Registrar at a point in time got an affirmative response from either telephone number or an email.  

 

Alternatively, the third definition of a “degree of correctness” suggests something other than a binary accurate or inaccurate response.  Therefore to help steer our future discussions I would like everyone to answer the following question:

 

Question #1

 

For purposes of our Working Group the term accuracy should be defined as: 

 

[  ] true, correct and free from error; or

 

[  ] degree of correctness;

 

(PICK ONE)

 

I think once we get clarity and/or agreement on these points, we should have a more clearly defined path forward for our post ICANN73 call.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220306/f2d5b53d/attachment.html>