Versions Compared

Old Version 9

changes.mady.by.user Terri Agnew

Saved on

compared with

New Version 10

changes.mady.by.user Amr Elsadr

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Apologies: Holly Raiche, Michele Neylon, Jonathan Matkowsky 
Transcript


Meeting Notes

1) Roll Call/SOI Updates

  • Attendance will be taken from AC
  • Please remember to state your name before speaking and remember to mute your microphones when not speaking
  • SOI updates: None

2) Complete deliberation on Data Elements for "thin data" only

a) Replacement term for "thin data"

  • There may be more data elements that may be publicly accessible, and added to what is currently being called "thin data".
  • Objective to replacement term should be that it doesn't cause confusion or imply meaning that isn't there
  • In short: Seeking a term to encompass the set of data elements deliberated on thus far and referenced in WG agreements thus far, replacing "thin data"
  • WG will eventually consider all data elements, and determine whether they should be public or gated
  • Replacement term is not meant to replace what is defined as "thin data" - only meant to include data elements that WG members tentatively agree unauthenticated public access is applicable to - currently includes data elements in "thin data"

Proposed WG Agreement: "Minimum Public Data Set" to be used as a replacement term to what had previously been referred to as "thin data"

 

b) Review poll results - see AnnotatedResults-Poll-from-6JuneCall.pdf

  • Question 2:
    • Overwhelming view expressed was that the expiration date should not be removed from the "Public Data Set" - some responses agreed that it should be removed
    • Proposed WG agreement is not accepted
  • Question 3:
    • DNSSEC is already a "thin data" element contractually required for publication

WG Agreement: DNSSEC should be added to the "Minimum Public Data Set"

  • Question 4:

Action Item: Staff to circulate the list of data elements specified in 2013 RAA, highlighting non-contact information that is currently publicly published in the "thin" WHOIS for many domain names, to the WG mailing list

WG Agreement: Today's gTLD WHOIS registration data elements classified as "thin" are sufficient at this time, to be referred to as the "Minimum Public Data Set"

    • WG will deliberate on additional data elements identified in poll responses as we move on to "thick data" and consider further data elements

c) Purposes for "thin data" - see RDSPDP-Handout-For13JuneCall.pdf

  • Are there any purposes in the EWG Final Report, which may need to be adjusted or refined?
  • Should the WG develop a comprehensive list of purposes before concluding what data elements need to be included in the "Public Data Set"?
  • There should not be an expectation for a complete list, however the WG should demonstrate agreement on purposes to collect, process and publish the data - considering the shifting environment regarding privacy/data protection applicable laws
  • Should the purposes of data collection, processing and publication of a specific data element match?
  • Should the purposes being discussed address those of registrars, registries or ICANN in terms of collection of data? Or all three?
  • What are the advantages or disadvantages of listing multiple purposes for collection of data elements in the "Public Data Set"?
  • Specific purposes relating to each data element began as a proposal on the WG mailing list by Andrew Sullivan to identify the purposes to collect each data element, then identify a purpose to publicly publish each data element
  • WG members to be polled on their views on purposes identified by the EWG to collect and publish "thin data" elements
  • Should the poll cover the table in the 6 June handout as a whole, or address each data element separately?
  • Suggestion: The poll would ask if WG members are in agreement with each table row, if not, what do they feel needs to be explored further - to inform next call deliberation

Action Item: Staff to draft a poll question asking if WG members agree with each data element in the "Minimum Public Data Set" (each row in the table beginning on slide 3 of the 6 June handout), and provide rationale if they do not agree with or wish to add to purposes, rationale for collection, and rationale for publication

3) Action item proposal from Rod Rasmussen and Vaibhav Aggarwal

  • No update available
  • Update provided to Rod and Vaibhav by ICANN staff proved to be not helpful

4) Confirm action items and proposed decision points

  • WG Agreement: "Minimum Public Data Set" to be used as a replacement term to what had previously been referred to as "thin data"
  • WG Agreement: DNSSEC should be added to the "Minimum Public Data Set"
  • WG Agreement: Today's gTLD WHOIS registration data elements classified as "thin" are sufficient at this time, to be referred to as the "Minimum Public Data Set"
  • Action Items:
    • Staff to circulate the list of data elements specified in 2013 RAA, highlighting non-contact information that is currently publicly published in the "thin" WHOIS for many domain names, to the WG mailing list
    • Staff to draft a poll question asking if WG members agree with each data element in the "Minimum Public Data Set" (each row in the table beginning on slide 3 of the 6 June handout), and provide rationale if they do not agree with or wish to add to purposes, rationale for collection, and rationale for publication

 5) Confirm next meeting date: 21 June 2017 at 5:00 UTC


Meeting Materials

6 June Call Poll Results (closes at COB Saturday 10 June)

Notes RDS PDP WG Meeting