All,

I have had a couple of discussions with the GAC contact to the GNSO, Jorge Cancio as well as an exchange of emails on the Accuracy Scoping Document.  The email exchange has been shared with the GNSO Council Leaders.  GNSO Council Leadership is planning on a call with GAC Leaders and Topic Leads to discuss this topic in the near future.

To summarize GAC initial feedback, and the responses (in italics from GNSO Council Leadership):

General Statement from GNSO Council Leadership to the GAC on Scoping Paper:  As you know, the topic of accuracy has always been challenging for the ICANN community and has become even more complex post GDPR. In coming up with the proposed next steps, Council leadership team worked closely with staff who were involved in supporting the EPDP and our approach was very much informed by the Accuracy Briefing Paper from ICANN org, which we believe provides the necessary objectivity. We were also guided by PDP 3.0 Improvement #4: Consensus Playbook, based on which, we believe the proposed next steps are appropriate for the Accuracy Scoping Team to:

1. Assess the Situation 

2. Right-Size the Problem

Specific Comments from the GAC and responses from GNSO Council Leadership

1. GAC Comment:  “We are not sure how this step fits in with the originally planned scoping exercise, whereto the GAC had been invited to participate;

GNSO Council Leadership:  Council reached out to the different groups to assess interest and availability to participate in a possible scoping team. No formal invitation to participate has been sent yet.

2. GAC Comment.  The document seems to imply that accuracy is an issue only for contracted parties, and not for the larger community as well, and that the issue is not “immediate” or urgent, which it is…

GNSO Council Leadership: This seems to be a misunderstanding. The references to contracted parties are due to their unique role as data controllers (see Bird & Bird memos on accuracy). All those participating in the scoping team are requested to identify  “what problems, if any, are expected to be addressed and how“, this is not limited by any means to the perspective of contracted parties. 

3. GAC Comment: The scoping team should remain free to shape the scoping analysis, whereas the proposed document gives quite clear-cut indications as to the work to be carried out.

GNSO Council Leadership: We believe it is the Council’s role, if not obligation, to provide instructions to the scoping team on what the expected deliverables are. This is what is set out in the document.

4. GAC Comment:  As to scope, there is support for the idea that the scoping analysis should be broader than the questions discussed under EPDP. In fact, the document could be read as unduly restricting the scope of future efforts by (at least initially) confining the inquiry to GDPR compliance. The discussion wrongly mentions that the accuracy issue originated with the EPDP when in reality, the concerns with inaccurate domain name registration data predated the EPDP and have been raised for many years.  Indeed, the concerns about whether domain name registration data was sufficiently accurate led to ICANN’s Accuracy Reporting System (ARS) initiative, an initiative that was regrettably suspended before it reached the key phase that would have measured the accuracy of the registrant’s identity.

GNSO Council Leadership:  The reference to EPDP is because that is how the topic has ended up on the Council’s agenda (see EPDP Phase 1 recommendation “footnote 6 - The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System) but the proposed steps forward document clearly recognizes that the scope should not be artificially limited to accuracy as defined under GDPR, as suggested in the ICANN org Briefing Paper.  It was not intended to be interpreted as to the definitive date as to when concerns were expressed about the accuracy of registration data.

5. GAC Comment:  Based on the document, colleagues comment that GNSO should be mindful of two main points:

• ‘accuracy definition’ issues should not allow blocking the scoping work (as this is the case on DNS abuse where definition issues do not allow advancing on addressing problems of major importance). 
• An adversarial discussion on ‘there is - or not - an accuracy-related problem’ would lead to a deadlock situation; and should be avoided as a starting point to the discussion.

GNSO Council Leadership: As currently drafted, the instructions to the scoping team are: “ Recognizing that there may be different interpretations of what “accuracy” means, what it may or may not include in different contexts and the laws in this area are evolving, it may be worth exploring the topic from a different angle. 1. Council leadership would like to propose that the scoping team focuses its deliberations on identifying what problems, if any, are expected to be addressed and how”. This approach is specifically intended to avoid focusing on a definition to determine the scope of work, but instead focus on identifying and quantifying the problem so that a data-driven approach can be taken in considering this issue further.

6. GAC Comment:  It has also been said that this proposal limit data gathering in a manner that won’t reveal to what extent  current domain name registration data is accurate. In this sense, while there is a recognition of the need to gather data on this issue, the approach seems again too narrow as it seems to focus only on the right of rectification or complaints about data accuracy.  These two data points alone will not permit a full picture off data accuracy.  The right of rectification will only shed light on whether registrants themselves need to correct their data (shedding no light on those registrants who intentionally provide false data to hide their identity).  Similarly, complaints about inaccurate data are likely hard to find – you don’t know what you don’t know.  Instead, there needs to be a verification effort to test the accuracy of current data – that would provide a useful baseline.”

GNSO Council Leadership: There has been no limit set to the data gathering or what it would focus on, but the scoping team is expected to consider work that has already been undertaken in this area as well as advice that has been provided by Bird & Bird on potential avenues that could be explored.

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com