[IRT.RegDataPolicy] [Ext] RE: Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion

Tue Sep 3 19:24:16 UTC 2019

Thank you Marc for laying this out so clearly. Even though I
participated in creating those workbooks as an EPDP team alternate in
Phase 1, I wasn't able to so clearly articulate how all the pieces fit
together and I really appreciate your doing so.

Sounds to me like we are safe expecting the Matrix and the Workbooks to
hold the same conclusions, and with using version 1.8.

Thanks,

-- 
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

On 9/3/2019 10:26 AM, Anderson, Marc via IRT.RegDataPolicy wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
>  
>
> Thanks for raising this via email and the effort to clarify potential
> confusion.  Before responding directly to the questions posed, I think
> it may be helpful for those not on the Phase 1 Working Group to
> clarify the difference between the data elements workbooks (referenced
> in the text of Recommendation #7 and included in Annex D) and the data
> elements matrix created by ICANN staff.  Note Section 3.4 of the EPDP
> team approach (found on page 30 in the Final Report):
>
>  
>
> /The EPDP Team realized the need to review each of the data elements
> collected, the purpose for its processing, and the legal basis for
> that data processing. This work resulted in the creation of the Data
> Elements Workbooks, which bring together purpose, data elements,
> processing activities, lawful basis for processing and responsible
> parties. For the Data Element Workbook for each purpose identified by
> the EPDP Team, see Annex D./
>
>  
>
> Annex D covers pages 92-147 in the final report and contains workbooks
> 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6 and 7. 
>
>  
>
> To create a comprehensive view of the primary processing activities
> (collection by Registrar, collection by Registry, transfer from
> Registrar to Registry and publication), staff created the data
> elements matrix document.  This spreadsheet rolls up the tables from
> each data element workbook purpose into a single view.  The
> (collection/transfer/disclosure) logic column for each processing
> activity in the data elements matrix neatly color codes each data
> element as either Required (green), Optional (yellow) or not selected
> (red).  The Required (green) and Optional (yellow) data elements were
> then extracted from that column and included in the body of the final
> report.
>
>  
>
> For example, for Recommendation #7, the Working Group determined that
> the “Domain Name” data element field is required to be transferred to
> the registry, and that is reflected with a green (required) indication
> in the transfer logic column on pages 9 and 44 in the Final Report. 
> In the data elements workbooks (Annex D), the “Domain Name” data
> element is marked with an “R” (Required) under purpose 1A (page 98),
> purpose 1B (page 103), purpose 2 (page 108), purpose 3 (page 114),
> purpose 5 (page 133) and purpose 6 (page 141).  Looking at the final
> (1.8) version of the data elements matrix
> (https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/e.+Data+Elements+Workbooks),
> the “summary_transfer_Rr_Ry” tab reflects the “Domain Name” data
> element as being Required “R” for each of those purposes and the
> “Transfer Logic” column is green (Required). 
>
>  
>
> In contrast, for Recommendation #7, the Working Group determined that
> the “Registrant Email” data element is not required to be transferred
> to the Registry, and this is reflected with a yellow (optional)
> indication in the transfer logic column on pages 9 and 44 in the Final
> Report.  In the data elements workbooks (Annex D), the “Registrant
> Email” data element is marked as “O-CP” (optional) under purpose 1B
> (page 104).  More specifically “O-CP” means optional for the
> contracted party subject to the contracted party’s terms and
> conditions.  It is also listed as “O-CP” (optional) for purposes 2, 3,
> 5 and 6.  In the final (1.8 version) of the data elements matrix the
> “summary_transfer_Rr_Ry” tab reflects the “Registrant Email” as being
> “O-CP” (optional) for each of those purposes and the “Transfer Logic”
> column is yellow (optional).
>
>  
>
> Regarding Question 1 below.  You seem to be questioning, based on the
> RySG group statement included as part of Annex G of the final report ,
> whether the aggregate data elements workbooks included in the Final
> Report at Annex D should be used  to guide the requirement for our
> policy.  
>
>  
>
> I’m not really sure why this is a question.  The text of
> Recommendation #7 references the data elements identified in aggregate
> from the data elements workbooks.   The RySG’s comment listed in Annex
> G is not a policy recommendation adopted by the Phase 1 working
> group.  Actually, the statement on page 171 was submitted by me
> against an earlier (11 Feb draft) of the Final Report
> (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001684.html. 
> In some cases the RySG feedback was adopted by the Phase 1 working
> group and made it into the Final Report, but that was not the case for
> the statement on page 171, and the data elements workbooks  were left
> in and included in their entirety as Annex D in the Final Report.  
> From what I can tell, and as I outlined above, the final version of
> the data elements matrix, the aggregate data elements workbooks in
> Annex D, and the text of Recommendation # 7 in the Final Report all
> provide the same information as to which fields are Required and
> Optional for transfer from Registrar to Registry.  Given that they are
> the same, I’m not sure why this is even a question.  As I mentioned a
> few weeks ago during our meeting, the IRT’s mandate is to implement
> the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report, including Recommendation 7 as adopted
> by the EPDP team, approved by the GNSO Council and adopted by the
> ICANN Board.  
>
>  
>
> For Question 2 – the final (1.8) version of the Data Elements Matrix
> must be used (rather than the 1.4 version the final report links to). 
> Berry has confirmed that this was an administrative miss which I think
> is sufficient.  A comparison of the aggregate data elements workbooks
> found in Annex D of the Final Report and version 1.8 of the Data
> Elements Matrix further confirms that it is the correct version.
>
>  
>
> Thank you,
>
> Marc
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*Dennis Chang <dennis.chang at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2019 2:20 PM
> *To:* Mark Svancarek (CELA) <marksv at microsoft.com>; theo geurts
> <gtheo at xs4all.nl>; Anderson, Marc <mcanderson at verisign.com>;
> irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RE: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional
> Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion
>
>  
>
> Dear IRT,
>
>  
>
> To spur continued IRT discussion on Rec 7,  clarify potential
> confusion, and align assumptions, I am asking two questions.
>
>  
>
> Question 1:  In consideration of Mark’s comment below, “workbooks
> themselves are non-definitive (p171),” should the workbook used to
> guide the requirement for our policy?
>
> Here is the full paragraph from p171. “Further, the citation of the
> Workbooks in Recommendation #7 should be removed. The agreed aggregate
> data set is presented in the text of the Recommendation as that was
> the agreed-upon text. The Workbooks are informational and should not
> be incorporated by reference.
>
>
> Question 2:  If the answer is yes to the question above, can the IRT
> agree to accept the version 1.8 found in the wiki rather than the
> version 1.4 that the Final Report links to?
>
> It’s important that the IRT’s decision on this be documented here.
> Please note that
> “20 Feb - Data Elements Matrix_v1.8.xlsx
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/96207076/Data%20Elements%20Matrix_v1.8.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1550683203000&api=v2>”
> is the last entry found on the Data Elements Workbooks page:
> https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/e.+Data+Elements+Workbooks
>
>  
>
> Please reply with your answers, comments, or question.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Dennis Chang
>
>  
>
> *From: *"Mark Svancarek (CELA)" <marksv at microsoft.com
> <mailto:marksv at microsoft.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 2:20 PM
> *To: *theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>>,
> "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com
> <mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>>, Dennis Chang
> <dennis.chang at icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org>>,
> "irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>"
> <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re
> yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion
>
>  
>
> I note that RySG says that the workbooks themselves are non-definitive
> (p171).  So even though the data elements matrix document is on the
> “workbooks wiki”, it’s the matrix document rather than the workbooks
> themselves which should be used, I think.
>
>  
>
> For clarity we should use the Data Elements Matrix document v1.8, if
> in fact that is the final version.
>
>  
>
> *From:*IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *theo geurts
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2019 11:54 AM
> *To:* Anderson, Marc <mcanderson at verisign.com
> <mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>>; dennis.chang at icann.org
> <mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org>; irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org
> <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's
> Rec. 7 discussion
>
>  
>
> Thanks for keeping us on the same page and on track Marc.
>
> I think your suggestion to stick with the workbooks from the final
> report makes the most sense.
>
> Theo
>
> On 8-8-2019 20:25, Anderson, Marc via IRT.RegDataPolicy wrote:
>
>     IPT and IRT members,
>
>      
>
>     The version 1.4 of the Data Elements Matrix that Margie references
>     is an old version.  The correct final version of the Data Elements
>     Matrix is 1.8 and can be found on the Data Elements Workbooks page
>     of the ePDP wiki: 
>
>      
>
>     https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/e.+Data+Elements+Workbooks
>     [nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fcommunity.icann.org-252Fdisplay-252FEOTSFGRD-252Fe.-252BData-252BElements-252BWorkbooks-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cmarksv-2540microsoft.com-257C8f230e035a7f4e74603808d71c31e341-257C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47-257C1-257C0-257C637008872914475857-26sdata-3DI1Md816vu6s4kEhafPdMnFMSVybZpSFxJdqZNfRRYUA-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=y6czU1DrDU0edDElRKK8ScLIcgbRHomRQhRdN6koJco&s=36J0xZSvvpnazCdkOmqv11ztj_HttfPiq8gB5ZEBv9E&e=>
>
>      
>
>     In looking at the final report, I see that the link provided for
>     “illustrative purposes” at the end of recommendation #7 (page 10)
>     goes to the old version 1.4 of the Data Elements Matrix.  I hadn’t
>     noticed this before as I have been referring exclusively to the
>     Data Element workbooks found in Appendix D (which start on page 92
>     of the Final Report).
>
>      
>
>     I suggest everyone make sure you are looking at the correct
>     version 1.8 of the Data Elements Matrix, or better yet stick with
>     the workbooks contained in the Final Report (Appendix D).  These
>     are consistent with version 1.8 of the Matrix document.
>
>      
>
>     Best,
>
>     Marc
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:*IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org>
>     <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org>*On Behalf Of *Margie
>     Milam
>     *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2019 1:07 PM
>     *To:* Dennis Chang <dennis.chang at icann.org>
>     <mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org>; IRT.RegDataPolicy
>     <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org> <mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
>     *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re
>     yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion
>
>      
>
>      Hi All –
>
>      
>
>     After our IRT call, I reread Rec 7 and the supporting appendices,
>     per Marc A’s suggestion.   Rec 7 links to the Data Elements Matrix
>     on Page 10 (attached for your convenience) , which clearly
>     describes what data is required to be transferred to the registry
>     from the registrar, and what data is optional.  
>
>     The 3^rd  page of the Data Elements Matrix (Transfer from
>     Registrar to Registry), clearly notes an R (Required) for the
>     contact data fields that are required to be transferred, which
>     include all of the registrant contacts except for:
>
>       * the Org field 
>       * the Tech Contact Name and Email Address ,
>
>     which are listed as O-RNH (Optional for the Registered Name
>     Holder) for the purposes listed on the matrix (including, Purpose 2).
>
>      
>
>     As a result, the new policy continues the “thick WHOIS”
>     requirements and our implementation needs to be consistent with
>     Thick WHOIS, especially in light of the Board’s resolution  and
>     its anguage in the scorecard.
>
>      
>
>     Also, please note that this data elements matrix is also relevant
>     to our prior discussion regarding what “optional” means with
>     regard to the Tech Contact and the Org Contact in Rec. 5, footnote
>     7.   Rec 5 also links to this Data Elements Matrix, and clarifies
>     whether a field is optional to the registrar, registry or
>     registered name holder.  Since the data elements of Tech Field and
>     Org Field are clearly marked as O-RNH and do not include O-Rr
>     (Optional for Registrar), our prior conclusions on Rec .5 need to
>     be revisited in light of this documentation.   
>
>      
>
>     I propose we discuss this at our next IRT meeting.
>
>      
>
>     All the best,
>
>      
>
>     Margie
>
>      
>
>      
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     IRT.RegDataPolicy mailing list
>
>     IRT.RegDataPolicy at icann.org <mailto:IRT.RegDataPolicy at icann.org>
>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/irt.regdatapolicy
>     [nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Firt.regdatapolicy-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cmarksv-2540microsoft.com-257C8f230e035a7f4e74603808d71c31e341-257C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47-257C1-257C0-257C637008872914485856-26sdata-3Dj3GsRIFZxR0BUDr9ynOJoV-252Bhq26dg02yQaVQCJW5wuc-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=y6czU1DrDU0edDElRKK8ScLIcgbRHomRQhRdN6koJco&s=FnkoEzYtOxacdubFTtJfdmmBPU76oZl1XICoNJcciqA&e=>
>
>      
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     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
>     [nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.icann.org-252Fprivacy-252Fpolicy-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cmarksv-2540microsoft.com-257C8f230e035a7f4e74603808d71c31e341-257C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47-257C1-257C0-257C637008872914485856-26sdata-3Dn1E7zCwGQetOM8oGhyRiGdNWcRmEa8yhIFYTKOW9ckU-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=y6czU1DrDU0edDElRKK8ScLIcgbRHomRQhRdN6koJco&s=mwtvkH3quy9dZHjFQQCkDpdc2xkfMHXJlor8sq4m7Po&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>     [nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.icann.org-252Fprivacy-252Ftos-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cmarksv-2540microsoft.com-257C8f230e035a7f4e74603808d71c31e341-257C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47-257C1-257C0-257C637008872914495849-26sdata-3DOoPLn4dY2YQmps9lEvFxJlgg0ZcA-252BFL9T9RpeOCm58A-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=y6czU1DrDU0edDElRKK8ScLIcgbRHomRQhRdN6koJco&s=Udq-6A-7JtWT4GZFX4U24kJZY6992-1vtZGxPdVEnhw&e=>). 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRT.RegDataPolicy mailing list
> IRT.RegDataPolicy at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/irt.regdatapolicy
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20190903/49191bb2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20190903/49191bb2/signature.asc>