Versions Compared

Old Version 21

changes.mady.by.user Lisa Phifer

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Lisa Phifer

Saved on

Key

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

...

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

...

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

  • 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)
  • 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.

...

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

...

  • 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."
  • Feel on authoritative data should 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.

...