[Gnso-epdp-team] SSAD as a means of publishing non-personal data

Steve Crocker steve at shinkuro.com
Thu Apr 22 11:50:52 UTC 2021


Thanks for your note.  I can't tell if you are responding or had seen the
note I sent several hours ago.  In that note, I said differentiated access
is essential and we must include it in our thinking.  I pointed out that
trying to design access to public data under the assumption, either
implicit or explicit, that differentiated access will not exist leads to a
design that is poor in multiple ways.

One key point I did not cover in the memo is the distinction between
differentiated access as a concept and SSAD as a particular proposal for
achieving some aspects of differentiated access.  As we have heard, there
are criticisms of the proposed design and significant open issues that have
not yet been addressed.  Among the open issues, the most important is
fleshing out the matrix of purposes, groups intended to have access for
each purpose, the data elements they should receive, and performance
requirements.  The overwhelming proportion of requests will have to be
satisfied quickly and automatically.  Manual review is tolerable for only a
small fraction of the total set of requests.  The best way forward, in my
view, is to tackle the open issues.  That's apparently outside the scope
phase EPDP 2A, but I think it is very much within scope to be clear that
this is a requirement.



On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:02 PM Alan Greenberg via Gnso-epdp-team <
gnso-epdp-team at icann.org> wrote:

> There continues to be discussion regarding using the SSAD as a means
> of "publishing" non-personal data.
> I believe that this discussion is a distraction that takes focus from
> what we should be working on. I say this for the following reason.
> 1. The SSAD does not exist, it may never exist, and if the Board does
> approve it, it will likely take several years to implement (remember
> we are 2 years into the implementation of Phase 1, and there is no
> centralized hardware/software to design and implement for that).
> 2. Although we specified that anyone may be accredited, it is not at
> all clear the amount of time it will take, nor what fee might be
> charged. And unless the system allows accreditation without
> authenticating the identity, this precludes anonymous queries.
> 3. We specified that the SSAD must be self-funding and that the users
> must pay for its operating costs. Are those in favour of using the
> SSAD for public data publishing proposing fees for such requests, or
> no fees, and if the latter, who will pay for this usage?
> 4. There are multiple details of Phase 2 Recommendation 8 for
> Contracted Party Authorization that simply make no sense in this
> case, yet are part of the approved policy. And changing that policy
> requires a PDP.
> 5. There does not seem to be any benefit of routing public-data
> requests through the SSAD with its myriad rules, regulations and
> processes when a vanilla RDAP server will suffice.
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20210422/c126c6c9/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list