[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting

Mon Mar 7 13:38:07 UTC 2022

If defining "accuracy" for the purpose of contact details, I'd claim that
the word is the wrong one to use - the right one is "fitness for purpose" -
if you try to contact the registrant using those details, will you be able
to contact them?

Unfortunately, some of the usages envisaged for WHOIS data (such as trying
to find out whether or not two domains are registered to the same entity)
place requirements on "accuracy" that go beyond the able-to-contact usage.

Anyway, that's not terribly relevant to the question. My vote (if I have
one, as a non-voting observer) is option (b): Degree of correctness.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:27 PM Volker Greimann <
volker.greimann at centralnic.com> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> I do not understand your hesitation to call it a definition, or even a
> working definition as that is the exact terminology that the council has
> tasked us with. If we cannot even agree on a definition, how are we
> supposed to make progress on the more complicated issues?
>
> As to the question of the term of accuracy, I believe we have already
> established that there are varying interpretations, and ultimately, our
> definition within the ICANN context has to flow from the definition.
> Looking at dictionaries may be helpful, but does not solve the conundrum of
> context. I disagree with Stephanie that accuracy needs to be a binary
> choice as there can be various levels of accuracy in our context.
>
> For example, a data set that just uses the wrong formatting may not be
> 100% accurate in the dictionary sense, but is still accurate enough to
> qualify for "sufficiently accurate to meet the purposes", even if it is not
> fully accurate in the meaning of the 2013 RAA, which may need some revision
> to be more generous towards registrants in some cases. Under the GDPR, as
> the other extreme, data is fully 100% accurate if it "accurately" reflects
> the data provided by the registrant.
>
>  So to answer your Question #1:
> I feel that option (b) "Degree of correctness" is a better reflection of
> the facts on the ground than a binary choice.
>
>
>
> --
> Volker A. Greimann
> General Counsel and Policy Manager
> *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*
>
> T: +49 6894 9396901
> M: +49 6894 9396851
> F: +49 6894 9396851
> W: www.key-systems.net
>
> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of
> Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
> CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner
>
> Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in
> England and Wales with company number 8576358.
>
> This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only
> for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of
> dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
> error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this
> email with any files that may be attached.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 8:32 PM Michael Palage <michael at palage.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 
Me in the role of IETF liaison to the ICANN board.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220307/5896275b/attachment-0001.html>