Page History
...
| Recommendation | Description | Current Phase | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommendation 1Recommendation 1: Root Server Operators should consider the advantages and disadvantages of harmonization of anonymization for DITL Data. RSOs need to decide whether to pursue harmonization of anonymization data that comes from multiple operators, particularly the DITL data. That decision needs to include consideration of the advantages and disadvantages from the standpoint of the RSO, of the users of the RSS, and of researchers looking at the anonymized data. Harmonization using mixing full addresses or bit-by-bit will help the research community correlate sources of DNS queries across datasets that are collected from different RSOs. However, full harmonization inherently relies on sharing a secret value that will invalidate the anonymization if it is later revealed. Even if the RSOs decide not to harmonize with sharing of secret values, harmonizing the method used can help RSOs choose an anonymization strategy, and simplify understanding the properties of the data for those who use data from multiple RSOs. |
| |||||||
| Recommendation 2 | Recommendation 2: Each RSO should consider the anonymization procedures in this document individually. Any of the proposals given in Section 4 of this document can be used as the anonymization specification for IP addresses, depending on the policy of the party doing the anonymizing. |
| ||||||
| The ICANN organization should, with sufficient detail, define an ICANN organizational review. This definition should be documented and available to the community. Details should be crisp and tight in order to ensure complete clarity of scope. | Phase 5 | Close | |||||||
| Recommendation 2 | The ICANN organization should document the intent of the organizational review, what information it hopes to obtain, and how that information will be used. | Phase 5 | Close | ||||||
| Recommendation 3 | The ICANN organization should continue to use its RFP process to select the IE. The process should be modified to ensure that the IE are experts in assessment frameworks and methodologies and that they are not from the ICANN community. | Phase 5 | Close | ||||||
| Recommendation 4 | When an organizational review begins, the ICANN organization should ensure there are actionable checkpoints in place to ensure that the organizational review is meeting contractual obligations. Depending on the outcome of each checkpoint, the ICANN organization should take appropriate action to ensure contractual compliance. | Phase 5 | Close | ||||||
| Recommendation 5 | At the conclusion of any organizational review, the ICANN organization should report on how the process transpired. If there are any lessons learned from the organizational review, the ICANN organization should demonstrate how the process will be modified. | Phase 5 | Close | Recommendation 3 | Recommendation 3: Autonomous System (AS) numbers of original addresses should be made available with the anonymized data if the origin AS is sufficiently general that it does not unnecessarily expose data that should have been anonymized.|||||
| Status | ||||||||
| colour | Green | title | Closed
