[GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] GNSO Report draft - Review deadline COB 1 April 2022

Wed Apr 13 22:58:42 UTC 2022

Marc,

I apologize for not responding sooner.  Thanks for forwarding the link to
the use cases.

My comments about understanding the requests and requesters are written
from the point of view of understanding whether the requester is going to
be able to get the data or action they feel is necessary.  The mapping of
their *needs* into the list of officially sanctioned *purposes* is one of
the possible disconnects.

Use case BC-3 provides a useful example.  Here's the relevant wording:

*BC-3: Overarching Purpose: Investigate, detect, prevent, and bring civil
claims for Abusive Domain namesUse Case: Identify owner of abusive domains
and other related domains involved in civil legal claims related to
phishing, malware, botnets, and other fraudulent activities*

*c) Data elements that may typically be disclosed:*

*Registrant name, e-mail, address, phone, postal address*

*Technical contact name, email address, phone, postal address*

*Other domain names linked to the registrant’s data contact fields*

The last line entails a "reverse search."  Unpacking this a bit, the
typical scenario will include two or more requests.  The first request will
ask for the registration data associated with a specific domain.  A
subsequent request will then ask for registrations that share the same
registrant or email address.

I don't believe reverse search or anything close to it is currently
included in the specifications.  The effect is to tell the folks who feel
the BC-3 use case is important to their work that they can't do their work.

Steve

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:32 AM Anderson, Marc <mcanderson at verisign.com>
wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
>
>
> You’ve mentioned this a couple times now, and I must admit I’m a little
confused by your statements about needing to understand requests and
requestors.  I think its pretty well understood and was discussed at length
during the working group deliberations.   Recommendation 7 from the final
report deals with requestor purposes and provides a non-exhaustive list.
This was derived from extensive discussions the working group had around
use cases.  Those use case discussions were captured by staff and
documented on the wiki page:
https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/d.+Use+Cases  They weren’t
included in the final report, but they are linked to in section 2.2 under
EPDP team approach.  Perhaps that will be helpful.
>
>
>
> On the duration/interval, I think a check in every 6 months for a maximum
of 2 years seems like a reasonable approach.  From your feedback, you seem
to think that is to long.  Do you have a different duration/interval in
mind?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces at icann.org> On
Behalf Of Steve Crocker
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 8:39 AM
> To: Sebastien at registry.godaddy
> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] GNSO Report draft -
Review deadline COB 1 April 2022
>
>
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.
>
> Sebastian, et al,
>
>
>
> Thanks.  I've added my comments.  The main points are:
>
> The overarching statement that "[t]he most important data gap in the ODA
is the unknown volume of use for the SSAD" is completely wrong.  Rather,
what's missing is what knowledge of what the requesters need and how to
move toward a streamlined system that meets their needs without putting the
contracted parties or ICANN at risk.
> The requirement that registrars review every request runs counter to the
necessary goal of learning how to automate as much as possible.
> The history of requests and responses must be available for study in
order to learn how to evolve the overall system.
> A two year test with six month intervals is not consistent with "A proof
of concept ... is expected to be relatively easy and inexpensive to set up
and implement."
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 6:47 AM Sebastien at registry.godaddy
<Sebastien at registry.godaddy> wrote:
>
> Hello Team,
>
>
>
> As discussed on our call yesterday, we edited the report prepared for the
GNSO, in line with our latest discussions.
>
> Please find it here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m3dANwxKK_q8gk5OTBcANkPk-PkTOCMS/edit?pli=1
>
>
>
> We kindly ask you to review and comment it by COB tomorrow, Friday 1
April, for us to meet our Council submission deadline on Monday.
> We currently have a call scheduled for Monday should we need
clarifications on your inputs. We may cancel this call if the report is
clear and agreed by tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Please note that we have left the idiom ‘proof of concept’ in the
document because we used it in our previous verbal reports. I did note that
the small team had requested to give it a proper name and referenced
“Simplified Request System” as suggested by Sarah in the chat. I know
Ticketing System has often been used, but I see this as a generic term for
the type of tools we foresee using, rather than a specific name for this
tool.
>
> With your approval, going forward we will use Simplified Request System
in our communications.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to your comments on the Google doc.
>
>
>
> Kindly,
>
>
>
>
>
> Sebastien Ducos
>
> GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
>
> +33612284445
>
> France & Australia
>
> sebastien at registry.godaddy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam mailing list
> GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam/attachments/20220413/ace839f7/attachment.html>