2019-01-24 EPDP - Data Elements Workbook

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

1. Berry to start email thread regarding processing activity definitions
2. Berry to work on next iteration of Purpose 2, Purpose 3, Purpose 4a, Purpose 4b, using discussion
3. Berry to start email thread regarding defining minimum public data set

Data Elements Workbook Team

Thursday, 24 January 2019

1) Brief review of today's plenary call, Consolidated workbook

• Page 1 around the collection of data elements by the Rr - we were working under the assumption that the data collected by the registrar (or a subset) would be transferred to the registry
• This table represents a compilation of the 7 purposes.
• If a data element is optional, the logic shows it will be included in the list for collection of data elements by a registrar (rec. 4) and rec. 5 is the transfer of data elements from the Rr to the Ry.
• The discussion on Tuesday, this could radically change Rec. 4 and Rec. 5.
• Goal is to get to the skeleton to define the logic of the workbooks. Rather than debate specifics of a purpose statement, we're looking to document the processing activities.
• Re: disclosure activities - disclosure may be thought of in privacy terms, but disclosure as it's intended in the workbooks is about publication.
• Help us define a path to go through the processing activities
• There shouldn't be anything preventing Rys/Rrs from processing additional data for their business model.
• Our scope here is what would eventually become a consensus policy.
• Purpose 1 does have a processing activity defined for the collection of data.
• When reviewing Purpose 2, it should be viewed in isolation.
• Purpose 2 looks sensible from a Rr perspective.
• For transfer from Ry to Rr- this accounts for fields such as Registrant Domain ID.
• If a processing activity is not required, we leave the row and document why it is empty. For purpose 2, we'd say the collection is occurring on under purpose 1. Transfer would be N/A and the comment or response would be text under Lawful Basis. Disclosure would remain as is. Retention would be N/A and the rationale is for the purpose of enabling responses to lawful data disclosure requests, retention is taken care of with Purpose 1.
• We may not want to tie Purpose 2 to Purpose 1 since we should consider all of the purposes.

Purpose 3

• (Enabling communication with RNH)
• Collection by Rr and Ry and transfer are not required processing activities.
• Collection for this purpose is necessary.
• Nothing would be transferred to the registry
• Nothing would be disclosed
• What about retention?
• Summary: there would be a processing activity for collection by registrar, would be processing activity for collection of data by registry; disclosure would remain empty; retention would be life of registration; question out to Alan about whether the Ry part would be covered under 1(b)
• Berry to put together next iteration of Purpose 2 and Purpose 3
• Berry to define the minimum public data set
• Berry to propose processing activity definitions

Escrow

• For Registrar
• Idea for 4a registrar escrow - there are certain data elements that are collected by the registrar
• Even though there is no collection for this processing activity, the consolidated table was used to determine which fields are transferred and disclosed.
• Save retention for Tuesday's conversation

Action items: definitions, Berry's homework assignment - next iteration of Purposes 2, 3, 4a, 4b

Define minimum public data set

For Tuesday's call - tentatively agree on approach for today

2) Review DET Skeleton

3) Assign as much homework as possible to Berry to develop next draft of workbooks