[Gnso-epdp-team] IPC input on the SSAD worksheet

Alex Deacon alex at colevalleyconsulting.com
Tue Jun 4 00:59:37 UTC 2019

Hi, here is the IPC input on the SSAD Worksheet



   The "Introduction" text on page 6 should specify our objective is to
   agree to recommendations and policy related to the sharing of non-public
   registration data, not “rules and requirements”.

   We believe that we should not pre-suppose or assume the use of a code of
   conduct at this point in time.  There may be other options available to us
   that will allow us to achieve the same goal.

   Based on my question on the last call, let's clarify the text at the end
   of page 8.  Replace “Following the completion of this effort” with “After
   receiving input from the EPDP team on this Worksheet, each topic….”

   To avoid confusion or misinterpretation we should avoid paraphrasing or
   summarizing Phase 1 recommendation language.

List of topics identified (page 6) – are there any topics missing?


   The third bullet suggests we will be deciding the "Format" of request.
     The EPDP should not be concerning itself with issues of “format”. We need
   to focus on setting policy around the criteria and “contents” of requests,
   including which data/fields are mandatory and which may be optional.

   The fourth bullet also mentions format - as above we should focus on the
   “what” not the “how”.

   As stated above we should not pre-suppose or assume the use of a code of
   conduct at this point in time.  Perhaps a more generic term should be used.
   Also things like terms of use/disclosure agreements/SLAs/data retention and
   discussion may be included in a CoC/Contract so perhaps we can merge these
   into a single bullet.

   Add: Authorization (its a result of the accreditation) along with
   Authentication (identification).

Proposed logical order to address topics (page 7) – does this order make
sense? If not, how should it be reorganized and why?


   We believe the order OK.

   See above regarding the use of a more generic term for Code of Conduct.

Objective for each topic (pages 9-21) – are the objectives identified for
each topic the correct ones? What if anything is missing?

General Comment

The main objective of this exercise is to ensure we discuss and answer (in
the form of recommendations) the charter questions as defined in the
“System for Standardized Access to Non Public Registration Data”.
  Answering these charter questions should be included in the “objective”
for each topic (as or if applicable). We notice that the charter questions
are referenced in the “Related mind map questions” section of each topic,
and in many cases charter questions are referenced in multiple topics,
however we believe it is in the teams best interest to discuss and answer
each charter question in a single “place” with the goal of avoiding (or
minimizing to the greatest extent possible) the re-opening and re-debate of
decisions previously made.

Additional Input


   For e) on page 17:

      References "format" again.  Should focus on content of requests and
      responses.  (what is required)

   For f) on page 19

      The header/term "query limitations" doesn't quite describe the set of
      objectives listed and is misleading/confusing.

      Perhaps "Query Policy" would be better.

   for i) on page 24

      again this section presupposes the use of an need for a code of

      suggest the use of a generic term.

Target date for completion (pages 9-21) – how much time do you estimate a
specific topic needs to get addressed?


   We suggest once we agree with a delivery date date we work back from
   that date with a work plan to address all issues that need to be worked on.

For topics a-f (pages 9-18) confirm that the tasks identified are the
correct ones and/or identify what tasks are missing.


   Ensure tasks for each topic allow for, at a minimum, answering the
   relevant charter questions.

   Can we map each charter question into a single SSAD topic, to ensure we
   do not miss anything and avoid any duplication of effort?

*Alex Deacon*
Cole Valley Consulting
alex at colevalleyconsulting.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190603/cbf4691a/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list