[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Notes and action items: RDA Scoping Team meeting #28 - 5 May 2022

[Caitlin Tubergen]

Dear RDA Scoping Team Members,

Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting.

Best regards,

Marika, Berry, and Caitlin
--

Action Items

1. RDA Scoping Team Members to review the Write-Up for Assignments 1 and 2 in its entirety and add proposed edits (using the comment function only) no later than 14:00 UTC on Wednesday, 11 May. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit

2. RDA Scoping Team to opine, particularly, on the proposals that do not require access to personal data; specifically, could the proposals that do not require personal data move forward, or is there another way that meaningful progress can be made while EDPB outreach is ongoing?  (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit)

3. RDA Scoping Team to review responses from ICANN Compliance and determine if any follow-up questions are needed: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-April/000398.html.

4. Brian G. to share a progress update on the engagement with the EDPB (currently anticipated in advance of next week's plenary meeting). Becky to share a proposed timeline of when ICANN org expects to pose the question to the EDPB.

Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #28
Thursday 5 May at 14.00 UTC


  1.  Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes)
     *   ICANN Compliance team to join meeting on 12 May to discuss Registrar Audit Proposal
        *   ICANN org will provide a more detailed update on the EDPB communication in advance of next week’s call. Colleagues responsible for this work will be asked to attend next week’s call and may attend if available
        *   There may be one tightly-worded question to the EDPB regarding gathering data on the state of accuracy – Becky to share proposed timeline of when this will be shared with the EDPB.


  1.  Write up for assignments #1 & #2 (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEYrDyntrgm-tcIavPMJndU/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEYrDyntrgm-tcIavPMJndU/edit__;!!PtGJab4!vePTEiC5VWb1waW_49TMytoSM3c-N7lJ2uWzKjGDiSOWTdVF9bcu4s8oB9Z-F5KqQJ4py-os2ZE$>) (15 minutes)
     *   High level overview
     *   Initial reactions

        *   So far, no comments or edits have been provided, with the exception of one typographical edit from Marc A.
        *   Is the team comfortable with the write-up as is?
        *   How should the group deal with proposals that are dependent or informed by the EDPB advice? Could the proposals that do not require reg data move forward, or is there another way that meaningful progress can be made while this outreach is ongoing?
        *   How much additional time is needed to review the write-up?
           *   One more week would be helpful.
        *   With respect to the definition in b2, this doesn’t seem to accurately capture everything discussed within the scoping team. It is missing some mapping back to the assignment. The first conclusion is that there is not an agreed upon definition of data accuracy. Registrars proposed the definition that is in the RAA, and that is considered the current state of accuracy (but not necessarily the final state) – text around that is captured in the document.
        *   There are two distinguishable approaches to accuracy – one is in the contracts, which leads to mechanical questions over whether the data is being collected properly. The other important question is – is this fit for purpose? The answer to that can only properly come from the people who use the data. What is in the contract and procedures is an attempt to codify the procedural aspect of satisfying the contract rather than trying to satisfy the uses.
        *   The importance of accuracy is that you cannot have a single definition. The paragraphs report accurately that we did not come up with a definition. The title should be “lack of working definition” or “impracticality of working definition”.
        *   Agree that changing the title would be helpful here
        *   GAC commits to reviewing the write-up to assignment one in advance of the next call
        *   The group needs to be explicit here that it wasn’t able to locate or find a definition of registration data accuracy; everyone seems to agree on this, but it is not explicitly said and should be. NCSG provided a crisp definition in this working document: The Accuracy Scoping Team confirms that they understand accuracy is generally refer to whether something is true, correct, and free from error, and the accuracy of registration data to refer to the degree of correctness when measured against a specified standard.
        *   One notion the group needs to weigh in on is how to handle the proposals that have been discussed – some are dependent on EDPB feedback and others are not. Does the group believe that this prevents movement on the proposals that do not require access to personal data
        *   The group has no control over how quickly the EDPB will respond (if at all) – is there any estimate as to when that will be provided. Saw another message about if the SSAD lite proceeds, the SubPro may have impacts – the same could be true of this work. Think the group could say – yes, we want to proceed with this, but a priority may need to be assigned. It is not urgent, given the other delays in the community. The group should seriously consider if this needs to be done immediately
        *   Becky is committed to coming back to the group with the timing of the EDPB inquiry.
        *   The best the group may be able to do is document the challenges we see. The answer needs to be considered and documented back to the Council. The Council needs to understand with some of the challenges of measuring accuracy.
        *   The write-up is intended to cover the proposals – as part of that – the group would note that some proposals are dependent on whether access to registration data is possible. The group could consider whether it would like to proceed on the proposals that do not require access to registration data.

     *   Discuss timeline for review and how to deal with placeholders
     *   Confirm next steps

        *   Action: please provide comments on the draft 24 hours in advance of the next meeting.


  1.  ICANN org responses to recent set of questions (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-April/000398.html) (15 minutes)

        *   There were additional questions that the group sent to ICANN compliance. Answers have been provided, but the group has been working on other work in the meantime and has not discussed or reviewed the answers.
        *   Please review the answers this week and see if any further questions are needed.

     *   Reactions / follow up questions
     *   Confirm next steps

4.       Overview of progress made on Gap Analysis Data Collection Proposals (30 minutes)(see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit__;!!PtGJab4!vePTEiC5VWb1waW_49TMytoSM3c-N7lJ2uWzKjGDiSOWTdVF9bcu4s8oB9Z-F5KqQJ4pwXPZErs$>)
a.       High level overview

        *   The group focused mainly on the proposals that do not require access to registration data. This was done for the registrar survey proposal, and ICANN org registrar audit. ICANN compliance colleagues will be joining next week’s call to discuss the ICANN audit proposal.
        *   Lastly, the group looked at a deeper dive review of accuracy complaints from ICANN compliance. Owen also provided an analysis over email for the group to review. If the group thinks it would be helpful to review these complaints, who would do this? Is it expected to result in information that will help the group move forward? There is one open question related to the survey that would help the group to opine on.
        *   Support Staff’s hope is that, following the discussion with ICANN compliance next week, the group would have a better understanding of the proposals that do not require access to registration data.
        *   Note: the project has been downgraded as the target will be missed. The close of April project package will be submitted shortly. Because of the downgrades, this will invoke the Project Change Request (PCR) – this will be submitted on 9 May and will be shared with the group soon. This is anticipated to be an agenda item for the next Council meeting. This PCR will be atypical as we do not currently have committed-to dates to plug in.
        *   Michael P. plans to step down as chair after the completion of assignments 1 and 2, and this will be communicated to the Council soon.
b.      Initial reactions
c.       Confirm next steps


  1.  Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 12 May at 14.00 UTC)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220505/15daa1eb/attachment-0001.html>