[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next week's meeting

Tue Apr 26 09:56:50 UTC 2016

Carlton’s 100% right

We spent a long time discussing ways of dealing with the various aspects of what we felt was needed and our proposal (warts and all) was based on all of this.

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday 25 April 2016 at 16:22
To: Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com<mailto:gca at icginc.com>>
Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next week's meeting

FWIW, the EWG's mandate was to examine and on the balance of facts, make 'green field' recommendations for registration data, here forward.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com<mailto:gca at icginc.com>> wrote:
The EWG final report gets closer, but it:

·        Details what elements the EWG recommended be mandatory  in the future, not whether they are mandatory or optional at this time.

·        AFAIK does not list all of the data elements that are currently collected. (Such as Account Holder data.)

·        Lists purposes for which data is collected, with good detail.   But then the display issues are a separate matter.

One of the problems with the EWG report is that its recommendations are tied to one highly specific implementation (the ARDS) in a way that is sometimes difficult to disambiguate.  SSAC commented about that in  SAC061.  The EWG report is predicated on a system that provides gated access and holds all gTLD data in one master, central repository.  Whether those ideas are good ones or not is something to discuss  down the line.

From: Greg Aaron
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 12:32 PM
To: 'Holly Raiche' <h.raiche at internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next week's meeting

Dear Holly:

As a co-author of SAC054, I note the following.  You said that SAC054 identifies “not only the data elements collected, but the purpose for which they are collected, and identify whether the collection is optional or mandatory.”

1. SAC054 does not list all of the data elements that are collected.  It lists what is usually displayed in gTLD WHOIS.  Registrars collect some data that is not displayed in WHOIS, and that data is not listed in SAC054.  For example: account holder data (which may be different from Registrant data), and the IP addresses of these making domain transactions.

2.  SAC054 does not list all the purposes for which data is collected.  SAC054 focuses narrowly on data elements used to manage the domain lifecycle and operations.  In other words, some operational purposes, and there may be other purposes.

3.  SAC054 does not identify whether the collection of a given piece of data is optional or mandatory.
               SAC054 says: "This document contains an enumeration of commonly used data elements. It is not a list or recommendation of which elements are or should be mandatory versus optional.  Some technical specifications (notably the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) RFCs) denote certain data elements as mandatory to collect, and ICANN gTLD contracts make certain fields mandatory to display in directory services.”

With best wishes,
--Greg

**********************************
Greg Aaron
Vice-President, Product Management
iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com
mobile: +1.215.858.2257<tel:%2B1.215.858.2257>
**********************************
The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

From:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 1:59 AM
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next week's meeting

Dear All

While I am apology for the next meeting, and not part of either the Privacy or Purpose sub-teams, may I suggest two documents particularly that have been identified and summarised by the data sub team: the SAC54 document which identifies the data elements collected, and  the EWG Recommendations. (in our list of documents, items 6 and 27) They are particularly relevant as they identify not only the data elements collected, but the purpose for which they are collected, and identify whether the collection is optional or mandatory.  This will be particularly useful for the other groups since the underlying principle of data collection in that data should only be collected that that is needed to carry out the functions of the enterprise, and that the data that is collected should only be used and accessed for the identified purposes.

While I will not be on the next call, Jim Galvin may be on the call, and he was one of the authors of SAC054 and can speak to it.

I hope that helps the discussion at the next meeting.

Holly

On 22 Apr 2016, at 3:57 am, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:

Dear All,

Not having heard any objections, we’ll go ahead and re-organise next week’s meeting as follows:

  *   15.30 – 16.15 UTC Data Sub-Team
  *   16.15 – 17.00 UTC Privacy Sub-Team
  *   17.00 – 17.45 UTC Purpose Sub-Team

Note that this will be scheduled as one call (same dial in number and AC room) to facilitate participation for those that are involved in multiple sub-teams, but there is no obligation for WG members to attend all three sub-team meetings, unless you would like to. However, if you are not a member of a sub-team but would like to join, you are encouraged to participate as an observer to allow ample opportunity for the sub-team to progress in its work.

Call details will be sent out in a separate email. Please ignore the notice that went out earlier today for the ‘normal’ WG meeting.

Thanks,

Marika

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160426/124f5b0b/attachment.html>