<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Caitlin,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Thanks for your note. SSAC's contribution to the gap analysis was submitted many days ago, so I'm puzzled that you say it hasn't been submitted.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">I've also been thinking about gaps in a somewhat broader sense. The attached Gap Roster is for the group to consider. It's intended to be a repository for all of the gaps, issues, etc. We're going to put this into Google docs so the community can contribute on a continuous basis. An immediate next step is to make sure each of the questions, issues, etc. in your note are included.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div></div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">A few more words about the gap roster. I'm <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">using</span> "gap" in broadly than usual. A lot of the same issues keep coming up, not only within the Accuracy Scoping Team discussions but throughout the entire registration data directory system policy development process.</span><br><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Rather than attempting to resolve the various long-standing issues, I think it will be helpful to everyone to keep track of and document the long-standing differences in objectives. Gaps of this sort are not going to be resolved by the constrained processes we're engaged in. Nonetheless, I think it's important to be forthright about the unresolved issues instead of trying to rule them out of order.</span><br><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Not all of the gaps are large and sticky. Some are much smaller and more likely to be resolved.</span><br><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><div class="gmail_default"><br></div></div></div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">The ground rules for this roster are to focus on content, not the motives of others, and to keep the descriptions concise. Include pointers to supporting or lengthier material if needed. We will curate to merge duplicates but not to lose important distinctions, and to keep it tight and manageable.</span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><div class="gmail_default"><br></div></div></div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">The goal is to keep the larger issues in view while being clear about which issues are resolved and which ones will continue to be outstanding.</span><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Thanks,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Steve</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 6:22 AM Caitlin Tubergen <<a href="mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org" target="_blank">caitlin.tubergen@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Dear RDA Scoping Team Members,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Please find below the notes and action items from the last meeting on Thursday, December 23 at 14:00 UTC.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Happy New Year to all!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Marika, Berry, and Caitlin<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">--<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Action Items<u></u><u></u></span></u></b></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">GAC Representatives to come prepared to answer questions raised during the meeting on Thursday, 23 December.<u><u></u><u></u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Question for ICANN org: Is the list provided at this link (<a href="https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used" target="_blank">https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used</a>) still
relevant? <u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">STILL OUTSTANDING: Groups who have not provided input for the Gap Analysis (ISPCP, NCSG, SSAC) to do so ASAP or inform Leadership
if their group does not intend to do so.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #11</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Thursday 23 December at 14.00 UTC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes)<u></u><u></u></span>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Status of questions to ICANN org<u></u><u></u></span>
<ul type="disc">
<li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Questions have been transmitted to the appropriate subject matter experts, including compliance, legal, etc. Org will endeavor
to provide responses to questions by 13 January (the second scoping team meeting in the new year).<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
</li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Vice-chair appointment – any further input?<u></u><u></u></span>
<ul type="disc">
<li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In response to Marc A’s message, Rafik served as vice chair and GNSO Council liaison during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Additionally,
the role of chair for this scoping team was not heavily sought after. Unlike EPDP Phase 1 and 2, which delivered binding policy recommendations, this group will not.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Response: With respect to Rafik as vice-chair in EPDP, others had concerns with that also, particularly because Rafik ultimately
had to step into the role of chair, and it’s not ideal to wear the hats of chair and liaison simultaneously. There are other options the group should consider, including requesting a vice chair from the GNSO Council.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
</li></ol>
</li></ol>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Gap Analysis (50 minutes)<u></u><u></u></span>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Continue review of input received from scoping team: </span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:windowtext"><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit__;!!PtGJab4!ome3kaoSrFqyTp3jQrNfsZ37N-C-TJ7VMAthKmqvTP8is9oe2FRXl4E4lvUwBJulwWvMHWkBbow$" title="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit__;!!PtGJab4!ome3kaoSrFqyTp3jQrNfsZ37N-C-TJ7VMAthKmqvTP8is9oe2FRXl4E4lvUwBJulwWvMHWkBbow$" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit[docs.google.com]</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></li></ol>
</li></ol>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<ol start="2" type="a">
<ul type="disc">
<li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">ALAC Gap Analysis:
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">The current goal of accuracy is the one embodied in the RAA, and this has a long history associated with
it. The goal going into the discussion of the accuracy specification is to improve accuracy. Both the NORC and the accuracy study showed there was a significant accuracy issue that needed to be fixed.
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">The RAA is a bilateral negotiation between ICANN and registrars, and what came out of it was – “we agree
to do some, but not all”. For example, the AFAV requirements have still not been implemented.</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">This is only a partial solution, and the original goal was not met, and the requirements detailed in the
Whois Accuracy Spec are still not being enforced today.</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In terms of the goals that were not met, could ALAC articulate the goals that were laid out and not met?<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">To make something accurate, is to make something useful and facilitate contact. Some level of verification that this will
facilitate contact should be required. <u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Concerned about claims of no accuracy, while the WAPS did provide improvements.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Indeed, there was an improvement with the introduction of the WAPS. By way of example of something the WAPS did not do:
registrars are required to verify either the phone or email address, but there is no flag added to RDDS to indicate which field was ultimately verified/usable.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Dispute that the WAPS was not effective; if you were to review the ARS reports, it showed accuracy levels significantly
improve. Over 90% of domain names were contactable by at least one field (phone, email, postal address), and a majority were contactable in all three. Adding a flag in the RDDS would be a gargantuan task and a large expense.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Did not say that the WAPS was not effective at doing something. Believe for 70-80% of domain names at least one field that
was not accurate. While 95% of names had an accurate field, it was unclear to others which field was actually accurate. Understand that information is maintained in terms of which field was actually verified.
<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The primary goal of this group is to gather objective facts. Could Rys or Rrs document changes to their systems, for example,
the Chinese real name verification – could CPs give an idea of the magnitude of what was done for these changing requirements? This could be helpful for the Council to make an informed determination.
<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Request to put specific questions to stakeholder groups in writing. When it comes to costing, it is very unlikely that registries
will share costing.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The 2013 RAA is almost 9 years old, and the cybercrime world has changed very significantly since 2013.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The RAA requires all contact details to be validated at some degree.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Believe that this verification should be done by an external body.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">GAC Gap
Analysis</span></a>: read into the record<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">May be worth more follow-up when GAC colleagues have returned – the goal in the group’s charter is to fully capture the
current state. It’s difficult to go forward with work without a firm understanding of what accuracy is. This is a red flag that requires further work – the group should be convinced of what the current state is.
<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The purposes for processing listed here is not the same as the EPDP Phase 1 approved purposes<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Question to ICANN org – Is the list provided at this link (<a href="https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used</span></a>)
still relevant? <u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Citing SAC 058, which predates the 2013 RAA, may not be relevant anymore.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Any study that samples data, whether a SAC report or another report, raises the question of what it looks like today. Perhaps
putting forward a nomenclature for accuracy, whether it is recognized as coming from this paper or not, would be helpful.
<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The question the scoping team should ask – whether this is being met, rather than it is unclear that it is being met. Need
to look at this from a perspective: it is not being met, and here is the evidence to show this. Or, there is nothing showing it is not being met. It’s easier to prove a positive rather than a negative.
<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">A significant part of ICANN’s ability to check accuracy, except on a case-by-case complaint basis, is that ICANN does not
have access to the data. <u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">7.3.2 of the RAA – registrars shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations – the only time this was seen
by ICANN is when registrars would say that something could not be done because it was prohibited by local law<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Can GAC reps please explain what they mean by “a more holistic interpretation of the RAA”?<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Without looking at new data, cannot verify that this conjecture is correct<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Where numbers are cited, the source should also be cited.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Call into question the InterIsle numbers<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The claim that there is a large amount of data that is not validated is simply incorrect. Would like to see numbers that
showcase an interest in domain name registered more than ten years ago.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Next steps: With respect to the first part of the Gap Analysis, specifically questions 1 and 2, the ways in which data can
or should be gathered to demonstrate whether or not certain requirements are being met. Some have claimed CPs should provide data, some said ICANN org or a third party should obtain the data. Through some of this data gathering, the team already receive information
that could inform 3 and 4. <u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
</ol>
</ol>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="a">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Scoping team input<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Confirm next steps<u></u><u></u></span></li></ol>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 6 January at 14.00 UTC)<u></u><u></u></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GNSO-Accuracy-ST@icann.org" target="_blank">GNSO-Accuracy-ST@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</blockquote></div></div>