[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting

[Sarah Wyld]

Hi Michael,

Those conversations were private and so (perhaps unfortunately) I cannot share which other contracted parties I spoke with regarding accreditation of data requestors.

I do not personally process the data disclosure requests sent in to Tucows, so I do not have details about how our Legal validates a requestor. As mentioned on that other call, I am aware that our team does their own validation and would not rely only on that of a third-party accreditation provider, but I don’t have further specifics.

If this is of interest to the Scoping Team, we could request this information from registrars as a whole, I’d be happy to take that request to the RrSG. In that case, I’d need a bit of help to be able to clearly explain how the information will be used, especially in the context of registration data accuracy. 

Thanks, 


-- 
Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E

Policy & Privacy Manager
Pronouns: she/they

swyld at tucows.com 



From: Michael Palage
Sent: March 16, 2022 12:41 PM
To: 'Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST'
Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting

Hello Sarah,

I was listening to the first 45 minutes of the Phase 2 Small Team call this morning and you made an interesting point about Registrars doing their own verification of Requestors, and not necessarily relying on the authentication of a third party as envisioned by SSAD.

I just had a couple of follow-up questions which I think would be enlightening to the work we are doing here in this Working Group.

1) Can you confirm the scope/number of registrars that you have spoken with that do not intend to rely upon any third party authentication, but will instead rely upon their own internal verification/authentication?
2) Could you please shed any light on the validation that TUCOWS does in connection with TACO requestors. Specifically does TUCOWS have a heightened verification / authentication / accuracy check for requestors, or is it using the same guidelines as set forth in the 2013 RAA.
     
My apologizes in advance if this question got answered in the last 45 min of the call.

Best regards,

Michael

From: Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 8:18 AM
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; Volker Greimann <volker.greimann at centralnic.com>; Michael Palage <michael at palage.com>
Cc: Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting

Hi all,

Alan – yes, wouldn’t the registrant (data subject) be the authority on whether the data is accurate? And so the registrar must update (rectify) the registration data as soon as the registrant informs them of the inaccuracy.  



-- 
Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E

Policy & Privacy Manager
Pronouns: she/they

swyld at tucows.com 



From: Alan Greenberg
Sent: March 15, 2022 11:21 PM
To: Volker Greimann; Michael Palage
Cc: Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST
Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting

"Under the GDPR, as the other extreme, data is fully 100% accurate if it "accurately" reflects the data provided by the registrant."

GDPR (Article 5, Section 1(d)) says that "every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay" 

Alan

At 2022-03-07 08:26 AM, Volker Greimann 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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220316/06ba8778/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DAA6578B0CF44E2391FF2662B8F098A2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15054 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220316/06ba8778/DAA6578B0CF44E2391FF2662B8F098A2.png>