[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting

Tue Mar 8 09:57:36 UTC 2022

Hi Scott,

we cannot apply a general definition to the term accuracy as it must be
framed in the purposes that the data is collected from the registrant for.
As you say,  a standards based perspective  of "the usefulness, accuracy,
and correctness of data for its application may apply but only to the
purposes that have been clearly outlined in the prior PDP work, e.g. the
EPDP. As such, for the general public, contactibility comes into play, e.g.
can you contact the registrant of record using this data.

In your specific case of what amounts to identity theft, e.g. a third party
pretending to be someone else, the essential question is who actually is
the registrant of record in these cases. Is it the shadowy figure behind
the curtain refusing to reveal itself or is it the entity listed as the
registrant.

In the past, we have always held the registrant of record to the the
legitimate owner of a domain name, regardless of whether he/she/it has
triggered the registration as this means that they can assert full control
over the domain and its use when they notice or are notified of the
situation, including ordering its deletion or transfer to a complainant.

In that context, the contactibility of the registrant would be maintained
even if the data is not actually that of the entity that executed the
registration. It is essentially a case of agency without authority.

Best,

-- 
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.

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 11:24 PM Scott Austin <saustin at vlplawgroup.com>
wrote:

> Michael:
>
> Stephanie’s reference earlier to data quality reminded me that when I
> started looking at the assignments here on accuracy scoping and definitions
> back in November, I too hit the books but I choose the online library of
> Wikipedia for a quick study. I ended up at a page on data quality which
> considered accuracy as an element. I share the link now because it provides
> some useful context to further this stage of discussion and the information
> also shows that the determination of data quality varies depending on the
> perspective of who is using it and who is managing it, etc.  Among the
> definitions they provide: from a standards based perspective  "the
> usefulness, accuracy, and correctness of data for its application" so I
> guess I will I will go with your correctness option as that appears the
> closer of your two options.  They also provide from a business perspective:
> quality data exhibits "'conformance to standards' that have been set, so
> that fitness for use is achieved”
>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality
>
>
>
> For those who suggest that a registrant’s data quality submitted is good
> enough so long as we can contact them I think we still fall short of an
> important element of quality, accuracy or correctness: reliability.
>
> What if we contact the wrong “them”.
>
>
>
> What if the registrant’s name submitted by the submerged account holder is
> yours, mine or any member on this list but its none of us who submitted it?
>
>
>
> Is that data accurate ?
>
> Is that the quality of data that we should accept as “good enough”?
>
>
>
> That ICANN and its global user constituency should rely on?
>
>
>
> And as for costs, what about the costs to rightsholders, who now have to
> sue even to obtain the true name and jurisdiction of the one who abuses the
> rightsholder’s identity, embodied in their business name or mark. But those
> are just the secondary costs. Lets not overlook the primary costs, often
> incurred even before the rightsholder has been alerted to the bad actor’s
> abuse: 1) damages to business reputation, 2) fake substandard goods or
> services, and 3)phished identities and financial data of unsuspecting
> customers.
>
>
>
> Privacy should be protected; fabricated anonymity to encourage identity
> impersonation, fraud and phishing and assist in evading detection and
> liability for abuse should not.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> *Please click on a link below to calendar a 15, 30, or 60 minute call with
> me:*
>
> *  a 15-minute call <http://calendly.com/saustin2/15min>   * a 30-minute
> call <http://calendly.com/saustin2/30min>    a 60-minute call
> <http://calendly.com/saustin2/60min>
>
>
>
> *[image: IntellectualPropertyLaw 100]    **[image: microbadge[1]]*
> <http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html>
>
> Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law
> Group LLP
>
> 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
>
> Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Michael Palage
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 6, 2022 2:32 PM
> *To:* gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
> *Subject:* [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message contains information which may be confidential and legally
> privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose
> to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you
> have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete
> this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and
> cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing
> purposes.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220308/2eb6044f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11048 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220308/2eb6044f/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220308/2eb6044f/image002-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1901 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220308/2eb6044f/image003-0001.jpg>