Notes/ Action Items
Action items: - Staff support team to create google doc to allow all those interested to provide input on the different items for proposal A in advance of the meeting.
- Alan G. to review his original comment re. verification of either telephone number or email address and see if further updates are necessary.
- Staff support team to incorporate the accuracy description into the write up for further review by the scoping team.
Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #24 Thursday 7 April at 14.00 UTC - Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes)
- Discussion last week to have a small team to look at proposal A – there agreed to be consensus that it was a good idea. Instead of forming a small team and trying to find a new time / date to meet, consider repurposing next week’s Accuracy Scoping Team meeting for this specific purpose – to work out details for proposal A. Those interested in working on this would be requested to join this meeting – those that are not interested do not need to attend. The outcome of the discussion would be shared with the broader group for review.
- Volunteers on the call: Steve C, Scott, Roger, Owen, Kenneth, Beth (maybe), Alan G.
Action item: staff support team to create google doc to allow all those interested to provide input on the different items for proposal A in advance of the meeting. 2.Continue deep dive of Gap Analysis Data Collection Proposals (60 minutes) (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit[docs.google.com] [docs.google.com [docs.google.com]])
a. Proposal E – Review of Accuracy Complaints If complaint is filed and registration is cancelled, complaint is closed – might be of interest if there is further information about who took down the registration (Ry or Rr) and the reasons for doing so? Consider doing similar work as for proposal A to work through the details of this proposal. b. Consider further input received on other proposals (A, B, D)
c. Confirm next steps
- Consider as part of next week’s meeting what further details can be worked out for each of these proposals.
3. Accuracy description of current requirements and enforcements (15 minutes)
a. Review input received on proposed description of current accuracy requirements and enforcement (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e5rUm-AFFDgNOU3OcT7ABu4InGwPiUyb/edit [docs.google.com] [docs.google.com [docs.google.com]])
b. Confirm next steps - Capture sentiment of first part in write up;
- Updates to reflect what is in the contracts which do not speak about accuracy but refer to validate and verif;.
- Strike registrant in second paragraph as it doesn’t reflect the fields that are expected to be verified today. Consider to update to RNH or if different, the account holder – which is what RAA currently says.
- Example – consider referring to the Q & A document and/or example in the write up to provide further context. Some are of the view that it is helpful to provide this context. Could it be a footnote. Possible compromise: keep first sentence but remove ‘such as’ part. Group agreed to move sentence to a footnote.
- Note that current description does not reflect that even in the case of inaccurate or unreliable registration data there is a 15 day window to allow for the registrar / registrant to correct the info.
- Proposed path forward – keep language as updated during the call, recognizing that it may not address all the comments raised, but revisit in the context of the write up in which other aspects of the groups work are also captured.
Action item: Alan G. to review his original comment re. verification of either telephone number or email address and see if further updates are necessary. Action item: Staff support team to incorporate the accuracy description into the write up for further review by the scoping team. 4. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 15.00 UTC)
|