Versions Compared

Old Version 34

changes.mady.by.user Lisa Phifer

Saved on

compared with

New Version 35

changes.mady.by.user Amr Elsadr

Saved on

Key

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

...


Meeting Notes

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

2) Opening remarks by Herb Waye, ICANN Ombudsman

  • WG members are welcome to contact Herb Waye via email at herb.waye@icann.org, or drop in to see him on 4th floor of the conference center at ICANN59

3) Complete deliberation on "minimum public data set"

a) Proposals provided in poll results - see both of the following

Poll Results, including all Comments: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078630/AnnotatedResults-Poll-from-13JuneCall-v4.pdf

  • Q2 indicated no disagreement; 100% of 31 respondents are assumed to agree with the purposes and rationales for Domain Name
  • Q3 Registrar - 6 respondents (19%) disagreed with purposes and/or rationale; 81% assumed to agree - refer to highlighted comments for proposed changes
  • Q4 Sponsoring Registrar - 4 respondents (13%) disagreed; 87% assumed to agree - again refer to comments for proposed changes
  • Q5 Whois Server - 6 respondents (19%) disagreed; 81% assumed to agree - review comments for proposed changes
  • Q6 Name Servers - 5 respondents (16%) disagreed; 84% assumed to agree - see comments for proposed changes
  • Q7 Status - 4 respondents disagreed; 87% assumed to agree - see comments
  • Q8 Updated/Creation/Expiration Date - 7 respondents disagreed; 77% assumed to agree - lowest support on elements in this poll
  • We will review the proposed changes identified by the highlighted comments by looking at the redline...

Specific Edits proposed in Poll Results: Merged-ThinDataPurposes-v3-redlineForDiscussion.doc

  • Columns depicts EWG purposes, and collection and publication rationale provided by Andrew Sullivan
  • Color-coded comments from poll results are shown with possible change suggested by that comment
  • Discuss the proposed edits as a whole for each of these categories:
  1. Proposed data element deletions as shown in the EWG Purposes column
  2. Proposed edits in the Collection Rationale column, and
  3. Proposed edits in the Publication Rationale column
  • Concerned we won't ever list all of the purposes
  • List of purposes not intended to be an all-inclusive list of all purposes
  • In some cases, purposes to publish the data are being conflated with purposes to collect it. Example: Although criminal investigation is a legitimate activity, and might be a legitimate purpose to publish the data (or access it), it may not be an appropriate purpose for ICANN to require collection of the data
  • Similar example could be research - might be a legitimate purpose to access the data, but ICANN's purpose is running the Domain Name System, not to collect data for research
  • Goes to Previous WG Agreement #16 (aka specific purpose 1): A purpose of gTLD registration data is to provide info about the lifecycle of a domain name and its resolution on the Internet."
  • Whether we should add "to assist in diagnosing problems" as a purpose is something we should discuss/agree.
  • But "to help police" is not a _purpose_ of the collecting of data it is a _use_ of the collected data
  • See also Previous WG Agreement #17 (aka specific purpose 2): A purpose of RDS is to facilitate dissemination of gTLD registration data of record, such as domain names and their domain contacts and name servers in accordance with applicable policy.
  • With regard to the EWG Purposes column in this table, the EWG did not differentiate between purposes for collection and access
  • EWG considered legitimate/permissible purposes for using data
  • Comment: Although there may be no problem with law-enforcement accessing the data, law-enforcement is not a purpose to collect and publish the data - not ICANN's purpose
  • Would the EWG purposes be permissible in the event that the last column in the table is changed to "access rationale" instead of "publication rationale"
  • All of the elements listed have already been identified as part of the minimum public data set, thus the last column refers to "publication"
  • If the WG agrees that the EWG purpose "Domain Name Control" is a purpose for collecting the Minimum Public Data Set, could the discussion move on to agree on additional purposes for access and publication?
  • Note that WG Agreements 5-13 already identify all of these EWG purposes as "a legitimate purpose for Minimum Public Data Set collection.”
  • Already rough consensus on WG Agreement #5. Domain name control is a legitimate purpose for Min Public Data Set collection, so no need to poll on this again.
  • Is Domain Name Control intended to be technical or legal control?
  • The objective of this table was to provide more detailed rationale for collecting and making public each data element in the min public data set
  • For each element it's good to have the "why collect" and then the "publication reason" and then the "access level"
  • The first question a data commissioner is going to ask when investigating a complaint is why are you collecting this data.  Goes to the data minimization principle.  Agreeing these purposes in policy standardizes the response which right now must be pretty random, on a global basis
  • For example, what is collection rationale for domain name, what is publication rationale for domain name, what is collection rationale for registrar, what is publication rationale for registrar, etc.?
  • Comment: If we say that it is not ICANN's place to say what the use-purposes of whois data are, then you can strike the entire Purpose column and just focus on Collection rationale
  • We should focus on our work product - make distinction between why data is collected and why data is published. We have come to rough consensus that thin data should be public, and that domain name control is a purpose for collection. Is purpose column just one input that is clouding discussion on rationale?
  • Is there some need that we are fulfilling by defining publication (or access) rationale for each data element?
  • "Access" vs "publication" terminology - see chat for points of disagreement. Would “access rationale” imply gated access? No, charter tasks the WG with identifying access requirements, which may include requirements for public access and/or gated access to some data.

b)  Identify proposed WG agreements to be tested by polling vs. discussed on-list

  • In this call, we seem to have reconfirmed the previous WG Agreement #5: Domain name control is a legitimate purpose for Min Public Data Set collection.
  • No additional Proposed WG Agreements identified during this call, so no poll this week.
  • Leadership team to consider next steps

c) Wrap up loose ends on access charter question - Deferred

4) Brief updates

    a) Legal Analysis

  • Contractor selected to perform legal analysis, based on inputs from WG members serving as advisors on this project
  • Contracting process is underway, hopefully to start before the end of June (FY17)
  • Target to complete within 2 months

    b) ccTLD Responses

  • Responses are starting to come in, received from .ME and .IE so far
  • Once several have been received, they'll be shared with WG
  • Submissions are being posted on wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/rVjwAw

    c) Plans for ICANN59

5) Confirm action items and proposed decision points

  • No poll this week
  • Action: Leadership team to consider next steps to wrap up this table and loose ends on the access charter question
  • Action: All WG members encouraged to participate in ICANN59 sessions in person or remotely

6) Next meeting date: ICANN59

a) Cross-Community Discussion on RDS on Monday 26 June (15.15-18.30 local time)

b) RDS PDP F2F Working Group Meeting on Wednesday 28 June (08.30-12.00 local time)

c) Additional sessions of interest: GNSO RDS update Monday, GDPR session Tuesday 


Meeting Materials

 13 June Call Poll Results (closes at COB Saturday 17 June)