The next GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group teleconference will take place on Saturday, 11 March at 13:45 CET for 180 minutes. 

For other times: http://tinyurl.com/hwqpv8c 


SESSION DESCRIPTION: http://sched.co/9npN

LOCATION: Hall C1.4 (GNSO)

LINKS FOR ADOBE CONNECT AND AUDIO: http://sched.co/9npN

SLIDES: ICANN58-RDS-PDP-WG-Slides-Final.pdf


PROPOSED AGENDA: 

1. Introductions

  • All WG members will briefly state their name and affiliation (if any)
  • All WG members will also have a chance to give any update to their SOI.

2. PDP Work Plan, Progress, and Status

  • Briefly introduce work plan (https://community.icann.org/x/oIxlAw), recent progress, and current task:
  • Task 12.a: Deliberate on Possible Fundamental Requirements for these charter questions:
  • Users/Purposes: Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why?
  • Data Elements: What data should be collected, stored, and disclosed?
  • Privacy: What steps are needed to protect data and privacy?
  • Starting with Key Concepts – latest version always posted at https://community.icann.org/x/p4xlAw.
  • Highlight initial points of rough consensus reached since ICANN57, reflected in that working document.

3. PDP Working Session

a. Finalize WG preparations for Cross-Community session with Data Commissioners
    RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-7March2017.pdf 

b. Continue deliberation on Purpose: 

Question 2.3: What should the over-arching purpose be of collecting, maintaining, and providing access to gTLD registration (thin) data?

  • Review results of 7 March Poll on Purpose: 
    SummaryResults-Poll-on-Purpose-from-7MarchCall.pdf
  • Finalize Statement of Purpose
  • Move on to next topic of deliberation by expanding our focus from “thin data” collection to “thin data” access:

    Question 2.2: For what specific (legitimate) purposes should gTLD registration thin data elements be made accessible?

4.     Confirm action items and proposed decision points


Adobe Connect Multimedia Session Recording

English Audio Session Recording

AC Chat

Transcript


Notes - RDS PDP WG Meetings at ICANN58

These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of these meetings and are not meant as a substitute for the transcripts and/or recordings. The MP3, transcript, and Adobe Connect recording are provided separately and are posted on the wiki here:

Saturday 11 March: http://sched.co/9npN and https://community.icann.org/x/GbLRAw
Wednesday 15 March: http://sched.co/9npc and https://community.icann.org/x/HbLRAw

Many WG members also attended a cross-community discussion with Data Commissioners. The MP3, transcript, and Adobe Connect recording of that session can be found here: http://sched.co/9nnl

For convenience, these notes are also available as a Word document.


Notes - RDS PDP WG Meeting – Saturday 11 March, 2017

1. Introductions

  • Please state your name before speaking and remember to mute your microphones when not speaking
  • WG members in attendance introduced themselves

2. PDP Work Plan, Progress, and Status

Task 12.a: Deliberate on Possible Fundamental Requirements for these charter questions:

  • Users/Purposes: Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why?
  • Data Elements: What data should be collected, stored, and disclosed?
  • Privacy: What steps are needed to protect data and privacy?
  • Review of work plan and overview of progress to date/current status including:
    • Focus on “thin” data
    • Deliberation on possible fundamental requirements regarding users/purposes
    • What data elements should be collected, stored and disclosed
    • Privacy and data protection considerations
    • Results of polls used to determine rough consensus among WG members – interim conclusion reached with no final decisions yet made
  • As per the work plan, initial report on phase 1 of the PDP will use rough consensus to determine 5 fundamental requirements
  • Noted that we are starting with Key Concepts – latest version of this working document is always posted at https://community.icann.org/x/p4xlAw
  • Highlighted initial points of rough consensus reached since ICANN57, reflected in that working document. Refer to ICANN58-RDS-PDP-WG-Slides-Final.pdf (slides 4-8)
  • Regarding agreement #14, on what basis did the group conclude that existing policies do NOT sufficiently address compliance with laws about purpose? What jurisdiction was assumed? No jurisdiction was assumed, but we know that in some jurisdictions, policy is not compliant, so therefore we need to do more (that is, current policy is not sufficient for all jurisdictions).
  • When was agreement #14 discussed? In the February 14 call, followed by a poll in which 86% agreed with this statement. However, note that some WG members missed that call due to conflicting meetings.
  • Request to highlight action items and poll invitations to help WG members notice them amongst all the long email threads (e.g., separate mailing list, actions at top of meeting notes)

Action Item #1: Staff to investigate additional techniques to draw WG member attention to Action Items and Poll Invitations, such as including them at the top of emails containing WG meeting notes.

  • Has the WG developed criteria for what makes a purpose legitimate yet? No. So far we have discussed only legitimate purposes for COLLECTION of THIN DATA. However, we still need to get to KEY CONCEPTS around what makes a purpose legitimate (criteria, etc.)
  • It is difficult to reach agreement on purposes without a better feeling for the consequences of identifying purposes as legitimate, primary/secondary, etc. Is this putting the cart before the horse? Hoping to get answers to these questions from data commissioners panel.
  • International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) member introduced the IACP’s recent resolution on WHOIS – was an update to the IACP’s last resolution, issued 5 years ago. The WG chair encouraged the IACP to join the WG and participate in this PDP.

3. PDP Working Session

a. Finalize WG preparations for Cross-Community session with Data Commissioners
    RDSPDP-QuestionsForDataCommissioners-7March2017.pdf 

  • Overview of 19 questions developed to present during cross-community session with data commissioners (Monday, 13 March)
  • Questions sent to Becky Burr who will be moderating the cross-community session
  • Working group members assigned to questions for data commissioners – monitor whether or not questions were asked and answered during the session (or perhaps answered without being directly asked)
  • Discussion with data commissioners will continue during session on Wednesday, 15 March

Action Item #2: WG members assigned to ask questions of data commissioners on Monday:

  • Tim Chen: Purpose
  • Rod Rasmussen: Registration Data Elements
  • Alex Deacon: Access to Registration Data for Criminal and Abuse Investigations
  • Vicky Sheckler: Personal Privacy/Human Rights
  • Kiran Malancharuval: Jurisdiction
  • Susan Kawaguchi: Compliance with Applicable Laws
  • Ayden Ferdeline: Consumer Protection

b. Continue deliberation on Purpose: 

Question 2.3: What should the over-arching purpose be of collecting, maintaining, and providing access to gTLD registration (thin) data?

  • Q2: primary point of disagreement is about whether data is authoritative or RDS is authoritative source of data
  • “Authoritative” has a technical meaning – access to the real database, not a copy of it
  • Does authoritative imply a requirement to validate the data? No, there are separate 2013 RAA requirements on validation.
  • Technically it's impossible for the authoritative data to be inaccurate with respect to the underlying repository (unless it is inaccurate on purpose -- e.g. anonymization)
  • From Chat: COMMENT: We debated this at length at the EWG.  Recreating the wheel here.  Also, per Article 29 WP 76 Opinion 2/2003, the data needs to be accurate, which during the EWG, we deferred to THICK data.
  • The Thick WHOIS WG used this working definition: "Authoritative, with respect to provision of Whois services, shall be interpreted as to signify the single database within a hierarchical database structure holding the data that is assumed to be the final authority regarding the question of which record shall be considered accurate and reliable in case of conflicting records; administered by a single administrative [agent] and consisting of data provided by the registrants of record through their registrars."
  • Should we be distinguishing between an 'authoritative source of the gTLD registration data' and 'authoritative gTLD registration data'?
  • Statement of purpose should not imply a particular model for storage of data or movement of data between storage locations
  • Registration data disseminated through the RDS should be authoritative (in the technical sense). That is, the data should be obtained from the source considered to be authoritative.

Proposed WG Agreement #1:  Replace purpose 2) "A purpose of RDS is to provide an authoritative source of information about, for example, domain contacts, domain names and name servers for gTLDs, [based on approved policy]" with "A purpose of RDS is to facilitate dissemination of authoritatively-sourced gTLD registration data, such as domain names and their domain contacts and name servers, in accordance with applicable policy."

  • Q3: Anything that needs to be added to the statement of purpose?
  • Somewhere along the line we seem to have lost the point that the RDS provides the information about the registry's view of the technically-required data for domain name resolution.

Proposed WG Agreement #2:  Replace purpose 1) "A purpose of gTLD registration data is to provide information about the lifecycle of a domain name" with "A purpose of gTLD registration data is to provide information about the lifecycle of a domain name and its resolution on the Internet."

  • Regarding comment "d" - The RDS is a directory service. Protecting privacy would be a potential feature available.
  • Chat proposal to add the following: Purpose of RDS is to support domain name registration and maintenance by providing appropriate access to registration data to enable a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and maintaining the ability to contact Registrants.
  • For specific purpose 5, we are conflating issues of purpose and requirements to fulfill a purpose.

Proposed WG Agreement #3:  Replace purpose 5) "A purpose of RDS policy is to facilitate the accuracy of gTLD registration data." with "A purpose of RDS policy is to facilitate fulfilling requirements for the accuracy of gTLD registration data."

Action Item #3: Test by polling the three above-proposed updates to the draft Statement of Purpose.  Staff to launch the poll after the conclusion of RDS PDP WG F2F meetings.

Action Item #4: All WG members to participate in the poll before COB Saturday 26 March. Poll results to be reviewed during the 28 March WG meeting.

  • The following agenda items were deferred to next meeting (28 March)
  • Finalize Statement of Purpose
  • Move on to next topic of deliberation by expanding our focus from “thin data” collection to “thin data” access: Question 2.2: For what specific (legitimate) purposes should gTLD registration thin data elements be made accessible?

4.     Confirm action items and proposed decision points

Action Item #1: Staff to investigate additional techniques to draw WG member attention to Action Items and Poll Invitations, such as including them at the top of emails containing WG meeting notes.

Action Item #2: WG members assigned to ask questions of data commissioners on Monday.
Action Item #3: Test by polling the three above-proposed updates to the draft Statement of Purpose.  Staff to launch the poll after the conclusion of RDS PDP WG F2F meetings.
Action Item #4: All WG members to participate in the poll before COB Saturday 26 March. Poll results to be reviewed during the 28 March WG meeting.
Action Item #5: Peter Kimpian to gather answers to the 19 WG questions from the panelists and provide them (if possible) prior to the next WG call on 28 March 2017. 
 

Proposed WG Agreement #1:  Replace purpose 2) "A purpose of RDS is to provide an authoritative source of information about, for example, domain contacts, domain names and name servers for gTLDs, [based on approved policy]" with "A purpose of RDS is to facilitate dissemination of authoritatively-sourced gTLD registration data, such as domain names and their domain contacts and name servers, in accordance with applicable policy."

Proposed WG Agreement #2:  Replace purpose 1) "A purpose of gTLD registration data is to provide information about the lifecycle of a domain name" with "A purpose of gTLD registration data is to provide information about the lifecycle of a domain name and its resolution on the Internet."

Proposed WG Agreement #3:  Replace purpose 5) "A purpose of RDS policy is to facilitate the accuracy of gTLD registration data." with "A purpose of RDS policy is to facilitate fulfilling requirements for the accuracy of gTLD registration data."


Materials:


  • No labels