Versions Compared

Old Version 23

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.

The next GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group teleconference will take place on Tuesday, 25 April at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 

09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London, 18:00 CET 

...

1) Roll Call/SOI Updates
2) Plan to complete in-progress tasks
    a) ccTLD questions
    b) Definition of authoritative
3) Revised Task 12 sequence and timeline
    See RDSPDP-Task12-Revised-21April2017.pdf
4) Start deliberation on the charter question/subquestion 5.1:
    Should gTLD registration "thin data" be entirely public or should access be controlled?
    See NewSection5-Intro-KeyConcepts-21April2017.pdf
5) Confirm action items and proposed decision points
6) Confirm next meeting date: 2 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC

 

Apologies: Holly Raiche, Olévié Kouami, Greg Aaron, Stephanie Perrin, Susan Prosser, Mark Svancarek, Rod Rasmussen, Alan Greenberg, Victoria Sheckler, Benny Samuelsen, Michele Neylon, Viviane Gomes Vinagre
Transcript


 

Notes RDS PDP WG Meeting 

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

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

...

  • Small team has a list of 13 questions for ccTLD Registries
  • Growing list of Registries, seeking contacts to reach out to them
  • ACTION ITEM: Susan Kawaguchi to send list of questions to the full Working Group for review, with the goal of finalizing the list for transmission to selected ccTLDs following next WG call
  • ACTION ITEM: Working Group members should review the questions, and send any feedback on-list prior to next Working Group call

b)        Definition of authoritative

...

  • Reminder: This WG is basing deliberation on the Thick WHOIS Definition of "thin" data as a starting point: A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar’s Whois service.
  • Today's WHOIS publishes both "thin" and "thick" data elements, and allows anonymous WHOIS query to all of those data elements - Gated Access might limit access to both what data is accessible (e.g., for each purpose), as well as authenticating who is permitted this access.  Rate limiting is a separate anti-abuse measure that can be applied to either public or gated access.
  • From the AC Chat: There are many ways one can "gate" access - but the question on the table is should access remain NON gated (that is, entirely public)
  • Reason for not displaying "thin" data publicly: Cannot answer the question without first determining whether there is a legitimate purpose that complies with applicable law to first collect the data
  • Can the need to publish "thin" data be satisfied by other technical means other than publicly displaying it? For example, cell phone numbers are unlisted and that doesn't cause problems even though landline phone numbers are listed. People find other ways to accomplish their objectives without a directory. Possibly this applies to domain name thin data?
  • There may be limitations in commercial purposes for access to data, depending upon jurisdiction and applicable law. - Question should be: Does one have a legitimate purpose in accessing the data?
  • Note: This is charter question UP. For now assume there is some “thin” data with legitimate purpose; charter question GA asks: Should access to that data remain entirely public?
  • Some believe that the only people who need access to "thin" data are the one's operating the domain name, but the reason why WHOIS "thin" data is publicly displayed is because other operators (operators of the infrastructure on the Internet) need the means to contact each other - possible reason for ungated public access to "thin" data
  • "thin" data that does not include personally identifiable information still has value in terms of access for those who would like to determine which registrar is the sponsoring registrar, and when the domain name was registered - was it registered prior to an associated trademark is registered, and does the trademark holder have a legitimate reason to seek contact with the domain name registrant?
  • The Working Group needs to answer the question of gated access to "thin" data using some assumptions, such as that there is a legitimate purpose in collection of "thin" data
  • In answer to this charter question, the EWG recommended that entirely public anonymous access by anyone for any purpose be abandoned. Instead, some data elements would be made public, to anyone for every legitimate purpose, while other data elements would be gated – that is, avaailable to authenticated requestors for authorized purposes only. Refer to the Working Document new Section 5 for a few relevant excerpts and key concepts from the EWG Report.
  • Working Group members need to provide specific and concrete reasons why "thin" data elements should not be publicly displayed (under the assumption that there is a legitimate purpose to collect and process this data)
  • ACTION ITEM: All WG members to review the new section 5 found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.pdf, which reflects how the EWG broke apart this complex question into a few key concepts

5) Confirm action items and proposed decision points

  • Action Item #1:   Susan Kawaguchi to send list of questions to the full Working Group for review following the Working Group call, with the goal of finalizing the list for transmission to selected ccTLDs following next WG call
  • Action Item #2:   Working Group members should review the proposed questions to ccTLD operators, and send any feedback on-list prior to next Working Group call
  • Action Item #3:   David Cake will communicate to the full Working Group by the end of this week proposed definitions/concepts to replace the term "authoritative" proposed new term(s) to reflect this
  • Action Item #4: Working Group members should review the proposed term(s) and definition(s) and provide any feedback on-list, preferably prior to next Working Group call 
  • Action Item #5: All WG members to review the new section 5 found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986791/KeyConceptsDeliberation-WorkingDraft-21April2017.pdf, which reflects how the EWG broke apart this complex question into a few key concepts

 
6) Confirm next meeting date: 2 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC

...