[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Survey Reminder - Please Complete

[Michael Palage]

Alan,

 

Thank you for the vote and your explanation.  I myself struggled with how to
vote. The reason that I voted for 'degree of accuracy" like yourself was
largely in part due to my experience in the identity space over the past
five years.  When you look at NIST (IAL1 thru IAL3) and eIDAS (low,
substantial, high) there is a clear spectrum of accuracy, it is not binary.

 

I was on the phone yesterday with an attorney that handles financial crimes
for a large financial institution. In talking about identity proofing and
risk assessment, the discussion was not a binary one but one that centered
around a degree of risk that a financial institution was willing to accept.
This discussion helped reaffirm my degree of accuracy vote.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan at gmail.com> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 8:44 PM
To: michael at palage.com; gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Survey Reminder - Please Complete

 

Michael, 

I am answering "degree of Accuracy", not because I am happy with it as a
"definition" but because it is closest to what I believe.

The term accurate is often not used alone. 

For a survey: "estimated to be accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19
times out of 20." 

A number printout: "accurate to 3 significant digits"

Some things are indeed Accurate or Not Accurate. E-mail addresses are
generally unforgiving of even small errors, Phone numbers are unforgiving in
the local part, but can be very forgiving in other aspects. Postal addresses
can have varying degrees of accuracy and Names can have many forms which
might all be considered accurate.

So I feel that any definition must be more nuanced.  How accurate something
must be (as Steve has continually reminded us) is sufficiently accurate as
to satisfy the need for which it is to be used. 

Alan


At 2022-03-12 01:11 PM, Michael Palage wrote:




Hello All,

I want to thank everyone for a constructive meeting last week. In advance of
our meeting on Thursday, I would like to remind everyone to complete the
survey. To date only 7 members including myself. Do not worry Volker, I will
disclose my vote and remove it from the overall tabulations so as to not
influence the final vote. However, consistent with my eat your own dog food
style of leadership, I personally complete every task that I ask the group
to do.

This is where you can go to vote - https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6
[forms.gle]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6__;!!PtGJab4!
rQG6Xsn6taQEsnZhno3se_bnN0yrUB9v2iNWReklt7NWvLef8aahfIHz_HmxYSmMDQbB2LAa0A$>
. Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able
to participate. 

To view the responses, you can go here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0
/viewanalytics [docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjV
hU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0/viewanalytics__;!!PtGJab4!rQG6Xsn6taQEsnZhno3se
_bnN0yrUB9v2iNWReklt7NWvLef8aahfIHz_HmxYSmMDQZ-aLZVTQ$> .

Best regards,

Michael

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220316/61b6bd20/attachment.html>