<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Alan,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Michael<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Greenberg<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 15, 2022 8:44 PM<br><b>To:</b> michael@palage.com; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Survey Reminder - Please Complete<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Michael, <br><br>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.<br><br>The term accurate is often not used alone. <br><br>For a survey: "estimated to be accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20." <br><br>A number printout: "accurate to 3 significant digits"<br><br>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.<br><br>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. <br><br>Alan<br><br><br>At 2022-03-12 01:11 PM, Michael Palage wrote:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Hello All,<br><br>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.<br><br>This is where you can go to vote – <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6__;!!PtGJab4!rQG6Xsn6taQEsnZhno3se_bnN0yrUB9v2iNWReklt7NWvLef8aahfIHz_HmxYSmMDQbB2LAa0A$">https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6 [forms.gle]</a>. Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able to participate. <br><br>To view the responses, you can go here: <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0/viewanalytics__;!!PtGJab4!rQG6Xsn6taQEsnZhno3se_bnN0yrUB9v2iNWReklt7NWvLef8aahfIHz_HmxYSmMDQZ-aLZVTQ$">https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0/viewanalytics [docs.google.com]</a>.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Michael<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></body></html>