November 2021 - GNSO-Accuracy-ST

Potential Questions for ICANN Org
by Michael Palage Nov. 24, 2021

Nov. 24, 2021

Hello All, As I mentioned in my previous email today, I found it a bit disappointing that we have only proposed 7 questions to ICANN Org. Therefore, over the weekend I did a lot of re-reading and re-listening to our plenary calls and I have composed the following working list of potential questions that the group may want to ask ICANN. This is not an exhaustive list, but I will continue to try and seed the discussion within the group prior to finalizing the list of questions to ICANN. Best regards, Michael Potential Questions: 1. Does ICANN Org have any internal documentation regarding “accuracy” or “registration data inaccuracy” complaints which they use for internal training and/or onboarding of new ICANN Compliance team members? If so, can they please share it with the Working Group? 2. If ICANN Org does not have internal training and/or onboarding documentation to provide guidance on the meaning of accuracy or registration data inaccuracy, is it up to individual Compliance team members to apply their own subjective interpretation of the relevant contracts and parties? If so, how does ICANN Compliance management resolve potential conflicts between divergent assessments from Compliance team members? 3. The Working Group’s current best understanding of the “contractual construct” regarding accuracy as understood by the Working Group is: Accuracy is syntactical accuracy of the registration data elements processed by Registrars and certain Registries as provided by the Registered Name Holder or Account Holder as well as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email address. To be determined to be syntactically accurate, the contact must satisfy all requirements for validity (See Whois Accuracy Program Specification Sections 1b-d). For example, for email addresses all characters must be permissible, the “@” symbol is required, and there must be characters before the “@” symbol. To be determined to be operably accurate, the contact must be operable as defined in the Whois Accuracy Program Specification Section f. The RAA currently requires validation of syntactical accuracy and verification of operational accuracy including an affirmative response from the Registered Name Holder for either email or phone. Can ICANN Org share any thoughts or concerns with this contractual construct based on their existing operational practices involving accuracy? 4. Under this contractual construct cited above would the following RDDS information be deemed accurate provided that the registrar got an affirmative response from the email account listed below: Domain Name: DISNEY-LOGIN.ORG Registrant: Mickey Mouse Organization: Disney Email: disney-login(a)protonmail.com <mailto:disney-login@protonmail.com> Telephone: +1-407-934-7639 Address: 1375 E Buena Vista Dr, Orlando, FL 32830 If ICANN Compliance was to receive a Data Inaccuracy Complaint in connection with the above referenced RDDS data fields, and they were to contact the Sponsoring Registrar who provided proof of an affirmative response from the email would ICANN Compliance deem this accurate and close out the ticket? If not why, and what next steps would ICANN Compliance undertake. 5. In the Whois Accuracy Program Specification to the 2013 RAA, there is a requirement to “verify” either the Registered Name Holder’s email or telephone with an affirmative response. Can ICANN Compliance confirm that there is no such affirmative response requirement in connection with the 2003 Whois Data Reminder Policy? 6. When ICANN Compliance audits Registrars regarding Whois Data Reminder Policy obligations there is a requirement for Registrars to provide “copies of each WDRP Notice or an electronic database documenting the date and time, and the content, of each WDRP notice sent under this policy.” However, there does not currently seem to be any requirement the Registrars prove that the reminder was received, just that it was sent. As part of this audit process does ICANN inquire about email bounce backs, disconnected telephone numbers or returned postal communication, if so what are these follow-up questions and/or remedial actions that ICANN takes. 7. The Whois Data Reminder Policy references “registrant” whereas the Whois Accuracy Program references “Registered Name Holder”. Section 1.16 of the 2013 RAA defines "Registered Name Holder" as the holder of a Registered Name. Can ICANN Compliance please reconcile the use of these terms. Specifically does ICANN Compliance deem a proxy provider as the “registrant” under the 2003 Whois Data Reminder Policy? Additionally, does ICANN Compliance deem a proxy provider as the “Registered Name Holder” under the 2013 RAA? 8. Is ICANN Compliance or ICANN Legal aware of any instances where any contracting party has argued that the terms “registrant” and the “Registered Name Holder” are not equivalent. If so, can ICANN Org summarize this divergent position taken by the contracting party and ICANN Org’s response and how any dispute was resolved. 9. ICANN Compliance during their update to community at ICANN72 stated: This isn't much new information, but wanted to give everyone an outline of how we've adjusted our compliance process since essentially GDPR which was May of 2018 when the temporary specification went into effect. Namely, the things that we need to do now are to obtain additional information and background from our reporters in order to verify complaints, this usually confirming they're the registrant if that’s the case, getting additional stuff that might have been otherwise displayed in the WHOIS prior to May of 2018. (emphasis added) Can ICANN cite the legal authority by which they are processing this non-public Registrant data? Does ICANN acknowledge that they are the sole Controller for this information that they are collecting and processing? If this information is forwarded to Registrars and/or Registries for action, does ICANN Org deem that contracting party a Processor or Joint Controller? Has ICANN undertaken a Data Privacy Impact Assessment (DPIA) in connection with the processing of this non-public Registrant Data? If so can it provide the Working Group a copy of that DPIA. 10. According to the quote above, ICANN Compliance stated that complaints are “usually” from the Registrant. Does ICANN provide any metrics on the Data Inaccuracy complaints from Registrants/Registered Name Holders and third parties? If so can ICANN Compliance provide those numbers. 11. One of the more popular Closure Code Descriptions cited by ICANN Compliance for Registration Data Inaccuracy is “the domain is suspended and the registrar is not required to address the WHOIS inaccuracy complaint”. Given that there are some Registry Abuse Programs that result in the suspension of a domain after inaction by a Registrar, does ICANN appreciate the potential gap in their reporting. A complaint against a Registrar regarding inaccurate registration data may be closed out through no action of the Registrar, but instead solely the action of the Registry. Does ICANN acknowledge that non-complaint Registrars may be slipping through the cracks because of the actions of pro-active Registry Operators. 12. Some of the Closure Code Descriptions listed by ICANN for Data Inaccuracy include: the complaint is out of scope because it is a duplicate of a closed complaint; the complaint is out of scope because it is regarding a country-code top-level domain; the complaint is out of scope because the complainant did not provide the requested information; the registrar verified the domain's WHOIS information is correct; the registrar corrected its noncompliance; and the WHOIS data has been updated. Can ICANN Compliance provide a list of all applicable/potential Closure Code Descriptions for Data Inaccuracy? 13. What is the legal basis that ICANN believes a Registrar is exempt from ensuring accurate registrant data with a “suspended” domain name? 14. Has ICANN as part of its Registry and/or Abuse Audits every surveyed Registries to determine how many domain names they suspended under their Abuse Policy after the failure of a Registrar to act? 15. Section 3.7.2 of the 2013 ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) states that “Registrar shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations.” Does ICANN Org have any active mechanisms to ensure compliance with this enumerated obligation set forth in the RAA? If so what are they? 16. Does ICANN Org have any passive mechanisms by which to receive complaints from the public sector in connection with potential violations of Section 3.7.2 of the RAA? If so what are they? 17. Does ICANN Org have any passive mechanisms by which to receive complaints from the public sector in connection with potential violations of Section 3.7.2 of the RAA? If so what are they? 18. There are multiple terms in the 2013 RAA referencing “reasonable and commercially practicable”; “commercially reasonable efforts”; and “commercially practical updates” who makes the determination on what is commercially practicable or reasonable, i.e. ICANN, Contracting Parties, mutual agreement between ICANN and Contracting Parties? 19. What standard does ICANN Compliance currently use in determining commercially “practicable” and “reasonable”? 20. Has ICANN Legal provided guidance to ICANN Compliance on how to determine commercially “practicable” and “reasonable”? 21. When was the current standard for “practicable” and “reasonable” adopted and what are the mechanisms for modifying this standard? 22. If a standard does not exist, when does ICANN Org anticipate creating one. 23. Currently there is no choice of law provision in either the 2013 RAA or baseline Registry Agreement. However, in one of the few arbitrations between ICANN and a contract party, ICANN requested the Tribunal to apply California contract law, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/terms-of-reference-09may12-en.p… . Does ICANN Legal believe that California contract law still applies in connection with any potential conflict in interpreting either the 2013 RAA or the Registry Agreement? Has ICANN Legal’s position change on the applicability of California contract law since 2012, if so how and can ICANN Legal provide an update on its applicability? 24. Section 1.e of the Whois Accuracy Specification Program contained in 2013 RAA states that Registrars will “[v]alidate that all postal address fields are consistent across fields (for example: street exists in city, city exists in state/province, city matches postal code) where such information is technically and commercially feasible.” ICANN Org and the Registrars engaged in a multi-year consultation to evaluate the technical and commercial feasibility. It appears that the last update given to the community was in March 2018. Can ICANN Org please provide an update on this work and an estimation completion date? 25. In connection with the work on address cross field validation, the ICANN wiki states “ the objective of ICANN is to come to a mutual agreement that will result in a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) vote in support of the defined solution(s) by the ICANN Accredited Registrars.” See https://community.icann.org/display/AFAV. Does this 2/3 support vote for technical and commercial feasibility for cross field address validation apply to the other commercial feasible and practicable standards referenced in the 2013 RAA? 26. In WIPO UDRP Proceeding D2021-1050, the Panelist detailed multiple “inaccurate disclosures” regarding the registrant of the domain name in question and other “misconduct by the Respondent and by the Registrar.” The Panelist further wrote that “[t]his is an issue that the Panel believes should be addressed by ICANN, and the Panel requests that the Center share this decision with ICANN so that ICANN may consider whether to impose restrictions on such behavior by registrars.” Can ICANN confirm if WIPO ever contacted ICANN compliance in connection with this dispute and what if any actions did ICANN Compliance take? 27. Because WIPO Proceeding D2021-1050 documented a clear conflict of interest between a Registrar and a Privacy Proxy provider does ICANN believe it may need to revisit its reporting Compliance report procedures? 28. During ICANN72 ICANN Compliance stated that several complaints regarding access to non-public registrant data were closed after they were deemed out of scope once that Proxy Provider information was disclosed. Considering the findings in WIPO Proceeding D2021-1050, can ICANN Compliance detail what if any safeguards are in place to document and remedy false and/or inaccurate information associated with Privacy and Proxy registrations? 29. Does ICANN Compliance have a formal reporting channel for UDPR and URS providers to share information with ICANN compliance regarding false or inaccurate Registrant data?

5 7

FW: [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] Board liaisons to GNSOs Registration Data Accuracy Team
by Marika Konings Nov. 23, 2021

Nov. 23, 2021

For your information. Welcome Becky and Harald! Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart--- via council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Reply to: "philippe.fouquart(a)orange.com" <philippe.fouquart(a)orange.com> Date: Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 19:17 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] Board liaisons to GNSOs Registration Data Accuracy Team Dear Councilors, Please note the following correspondence from Maarten Botterman regarding the appointment of Becky Burr and Harald Alvestrand as Board liaisons to the accuracy scoping team. Regards, Philippe Orange Restricted From: Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of maarten.botterman--- via Gnso-chairs Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:05 PM To: Gnso-chairs(a)icann.org; Gnso-secs(a)icann.org Cc: 'Secretary' <secretary(a)icann.org>; harald.alvestrand(a)board.icann.org; becky.burr(a)board.icann.org; 'Board Ops Team' <board-ops-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Board liaisons to GNSOs Registration Data Accuracy Team Dear Philippe, I’m writing to notify you that the ICANN Board has selected two members of the Board to serve as liaisons to the GNSO Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team. They are Becky Burr and Harald Alvestrand (alternate); and you may already be in communication with them in this regard. This email serves as official notification of their appointments. The Board liaisons will share on a regular basis any input the Board may have that will inform the GNSO Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team deliberations and ongoing work. Thank you, Maarten Botterman Chair, ICANN Board of Directors _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Homework - aspirational definition
by Michael Palage Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

Hello Sarah, Thank you for this constructive suggestion. Olga and I are meeting with our ICANN colleagues tomorrow to flesh out the December 2nd agenda. After listening to a couple of previous Zoom recordings over the weekend to make sure I was fully appreciating everyone’s concern, we have been discussing some tweaks to the table. Given the sensitivity within the group regarding the use of the term “aspirational definition” and how that may distract us from our other goals, I think a Gap Analysis table may be the most prudent way forward. After consultation with our ICANN colleagues tomorrow we will share an update table to help assist the group with their outstanding work. Best regards, Michael From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 3:16 PM To: gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Homework - aspirational definition Hello all, The RrSG representatives to this Accuracy Scoping Team have reviewed the homework assignment for the aspirational definition of accuracy and appreciate the approach taken here, beginning with identifying problems that need to be addressed and ways the problem(s) may already be documented or understood. That said, we are not certain that this is the right time or venue to work towards a new meaning or type of accuracy for registration data. Instead, we believe the Scoping Team should focus on working through our Instructions from the GNSO Council in the order they were provided, and the fact-based approach at identifying problems and gaps should be used to help us understand the current landscape and definition of registration data accuracy. To this end we propose creating a slightly different chart, which would in one column hold the elements of the current definition of registration data accuracy, and in the others would track the goals or intent of that definition, how it can be measured, and finally any information as to its efficacy. This would bring us closer to completing Instruction #1 (consideration of what compliance with the existing contractual data accuracy obligations means) and #2 (provide recommendations for how accuracy levels can be determined and measured) and subsequently give us a solid basis to work through #3 (undertake an analysis of the accuracy levels measured to determine if they are effective) and #4 (assess if changes to current practice are needed). Thank you, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they <mailto:swyld@tucows.com> swyld(a)tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

1 0

Homework - aspirational definition
by Sarah Wyld Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

Hello all, The RrSG representatives to this Accuracy Scoping Team have reviewed the homework assignment for the aspirational definition of accuracy and appreciate the approach taken here, beginning with identifying problems that need to be addressed and ways the problem(s) may already be documented or understood. That said, we are not certain that this is the right time or venue to work towards a new meaning or type of accuracy for registration data. Instead, we believe the Scoping Team should focus on working through our Instructions from the GNSO Council in the order they were provided, and the fact-based approach at identifying problems and gaps should be used to help us understand the current landscape and definition of registration data accuracy. To this end we propose creating a slightly different chart, which would in one column hold the elements of the current definition of registration data accuracy, and in the others would track the goals or intent of that definition, how it can be measured, and finally any information as to its efficacy. This would bring us closer to completing Instruction #1 (consideration of what compliance with the existing contractual data accuracy obligations means) and #2 (provide recommendations for how accuracy levels can be determined and measured) and subsequently give us a solid basis to work through #3 (undertake an analysis of the accuracy levels measured to determine if they are effective) and #4 (assess if changes to current practice are needed). Thank you, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld(a)tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

1 0

Homework - aspirational definition
by Sarah Wyld Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

Hello all, The RrSG representatives to this Accuracy Scoping Team have reviewed the homework assignment for the aspirational definition of accuracy and appreciate the approach taken here, beginning with identifying problems that need to be addressed and ways the problem(s) may already be documented or understood. That said, we are not certain that this is the right time or venue to work towards a new meaning or type of accuracy for registration data. Instead, we believe the Scoping Team should focus on working through our Instructions from the GNSO Council in the order they were provided, and the fact-based approach at identifying problems and gaps should be used to help us understand the current landscape and definition of registration data accuracy. To this end we propose creating a slightly different chart, which would in one column hold the elements of the current definition of registration data accuracy, and in the others would track the goals or intent of that definition, how it can be measured, and finally any information as to its efficacy. This would bring us closer to completing Instruction #1 (consideration of what compliance with the existing contractual data accuracy obligations means) and #2 (provide recommendations for how accuracy levels can be determined and measured) and subsequently give us a solid basis to work through #3 (undertake an analysis of the accuracy levels measured to determine if they are effective) and #4 (assess if changes to current practice are needed). Thank you, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld(a)tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

1 0

Update regarding Thursday's Meeting
by Michael Palage Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

Hello All, In light of the number of team members that will not be attending Thursday's call due to the Thanksgiving holiday in the US, there will be no substantive material discussed on Thursday's meeting. Instead, I will use the meeting to provide an expanded administrative update similar to the administrative update at the start of our regular meetings. In light of the concerns expressed by some team members about inconveniencing those ICANN colleagues that may be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday, I am coordinating with ICANN Org to minimize/remove any such potential inconveniences. As I expressed several weeks ago, the objective was NOT to have a substantive plenary call on Thursday provided that we were on track with our work assignments. Unfortunately, after almost a three week window in which the group was supposed to review all of the background material and draft questions to ICANN Org, there is a total of 7 questions (1 group question, 4 from ALAC, and 2 from the Registrars). I do want to acknowledge that those stakeholder groups happy with the status quo may have reviewed the material and decided they have no questions. However, given that this Working Group was constituted as a result of the EPDP Phase 2 work, and ICANN Org has invested a substantial amount of time preparing detailed background documentation, I have to be honest with the group that I found the resulting lack of questions a little disappointing. To be clear I want to acknowledge and appreciate the questions that Alan and Roger have submitted on behalf of ALAC and the Registrars respectively. While I fully appreciate that many team members have had illnesses, professional obligations, and other personal conflicts over the past couple of weeks, we had sought and obtained approval from the GNSO Council to use alternates to help with delegating the work assignments. The agenda for our meeting on December 2nd will be to finalize the list of questions to ICANN Org as well as our other outstanding items. Our ICANN colleagues will be sending out a formal agenda for the December 2nd meeting tomorrow. It is critical that we finalize a list of questions to ICANN Org so that we can get responses before the ICANN end of year holiday quiet period. To help stimulate the formulation of questions to our ICANN colleagues I spent a large portion of my weekend drafting proposed questions, and will be sending those questions to the list shortly. Best regards, Michael

1 0

Notes and action items - RDA ST Meeting #6 - 18 Nov 2021
by Caitlin Tubergen Nov. 19, 2021

Nov. 19, 2021

Dear RDA Scoping Team, Please find below the notes and action items from yesterday’s meeting. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=176622913> 1. Michael to review the transcripts from the two recent meetings and distribute updated instructions for the gap analysis assignment by Tuesday, 23 November. 2. STILL OPEN: RDA Scoping Team members to populate questions to ICANN org in the dedicated Google Doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1arlKdQkbRkE1LuurmDdd-PZP184_AdFm/edit> over the coming weeks with a goal to finalize questions by Friday, 27 November. 3. STILL OPEN (note: further instructions coming): By Thursday, 2 December, each group to identify their future explanation of Accuracy<https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit>, i.e., what should accuracy requirements look like and how should these be implemented and enforced by ICANN org in a future state? As part of this future explanation of accuracy, you are asked to identify what problem(s) this future explanation is expected to address, as well as provide your insights into how this problem has already been documented or how it can be documented as part of the team’s effort to scope the issue. Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #6 Thursday 18 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) * Steve Crocker’s memo – looking for recitation of the previously agreed upon purposes. Is the focus of this group a single definition of accuracy for only email and phone numbers? If so, the job of this group is quite easy. This would make the future job of a PDP WG very easy, as it would remain silent for all other levels of accuracy * This is not a question of size – the group as a whole is trying to determine how best to proceed here. The questions asked in this email are not relevant to questions 1 and 2, which are before the group right now. These questions do not require examination of specific data elements or purposes. * A single level of accuracy could vary in practice – for example, operational accuracy may apply to email and phone – think it would be important to define or determine the purpose of the data at this time * The desire is to say – the group has almost finished its work on the current state of play, and now the group will try to understand how ICANN currently measures and enforces this. Should different accuracy requirements apply to different data elements – this seems to be about discussing what could be improved later * How can the group come up with an aspirational definition of accuracy in two weeks because this does require knowing what it will be used for * It could be possible to come up with an aspirational definition with the potential aspirational purposes that may or not be met. There was, for example, a lot of discussion regarding purposes in EPDP Phase 1. Part of the aspirational definition will be to determine if there is a gap b/w what EPDP did and what this group is doing. This group is a scoping team with a job to ask questions, gather facts, and present this to the Council so that the Council can determine whether to move forward with a PDP (or not). * It is foolish to discuss aspirational definitions. If the group is talking about the purposes of ICANN compliance, the group needs to discuss the role ICANN is playing in terms of controllership. If the group is talking about the purposes of gathering data, then you have to discuss controllership – if it is a secondary role, for example, ICANN’s purposes are irrelevant. * Aspirational definition came into play to discuss the elements of accuracy that are important to each group. This is to allow for nothing to be forgotten and converge on a definition that everyone can agree with. * The aspirational definition exercise is about identifying gaps – if you believe there is a problem with the current definition, what data would be helpful to inform this gap. The goal is to have a data-driven conversation. * Disagree with approach of identifying an aspirational definition – the exercise of trying to create an aspirational definition at this point in the group’s work is not helpful and is leading to more confusion. * Action: Michael to review this transcript and provide further clarification of the gap analysis assignment. * If the assignment is pending further instruction, the deadline also needs to change * The assignment has not changed; however, Michael is trying to be sensitive to the terminology of aspirational * Understand the importance of making target, but the quality of the work is also important. If the assignment is the same after having heard the feedback, this is ignoring the feedback of the group. * The accuracy regime never recognized the realities of data privacy law. The group needs to balance rights, responsibilities, and perceived requirements (aspirations of users). This needs to be assessed with the burden on data subjects and has to be assessed on the roles of the controllers and co-controller agreements. 1. Follow up questions to ICANN org regarding enforcement and Accuracy Reporting System (45 minutes) * Input received from scoping team to date: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1arlKdQkbRkE1LuurmDdd-PZP184_AdFm/edit[d…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1arlKdQkbRkE1…> * The objective of the questions provided by ALAC is to better understand how accuracy is interpreted by compliance and how much they get involved * If a phone number has been verified, and an email changes, does the email need to be verified? * In response to this, the Whois Accuracy Program Specification needs to be read in totality. For example, Registrar is not required to perform the above validation and verification procedures in Section 1(a) through 1(f) above, if Registrar has already successfully completed the validation and verification procedures on the identical contact information and is not in possession of facts or knowledge of circumstances that suggest that the information is no longer valid. * If a change is made, the phone or email address needs to be validated. If only one field changes, this is unrelated to question 2 regarding transfer of the sponsorship of a registered name. A material change to the name, organization, or email address triggers the Change of Registrant process. * Interested in how ICANN interprets this – if I verify the phone number and I change the email address, would the phone number be reverified at this point? * Just because an email address is verified, this doesn’t change the onus on the RNH to provide accurate contact information for all fields. * Confused as to how question 4 could be addressed effectively * At present, one field (email or phone number) is verified, but a requestor would not know what field that is. If someone requests both the phone number and the email address, does the registrar have the discretion to only return one of them. * What is the next step with these questions? The group has an ICANN org liaison – as questions arise, the liaison takes questions to the org and gets them responded to. Thought the purpose of these questions was to determine if a briefing is needed from ICANN org * It may help if Support Staff can put links in the document that show where some of these questions are already answered in the documents * Scoping team input * Confirm deadline for submission of questions 1. Homework reminder: * Future explanation / aspirational definition of accuracy see template -https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUs…>) * Deadline: 2 December 2021 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 25 November at 14.00 UTC) * Attempt to undertake the work intersessionally * Concerned that many people take this day off and would not be able to attend due to U.S. thanksgiving

1 0

Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Nov. 19, 2021

Nov. 19, 2021

Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZENk9yN0RqOUUzaGx2eGV0QT09 Passcode: Vc#0B7$pu8 For Audio only: Or One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94504686990#,,,,*4631547480# or +13126266799,,94504686990#,,,,*4631547480# Webinar ID: 945 0468 6990 Passcode: 4631547480 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/akRu7JTFd [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/akRu7JTFd__;!!PtGJab4!pY…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> Members, participants, alternates and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call * Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/3gC7Cg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/zb32mzap ONLY for Members and Alternates * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Panelists and Attendees, or Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – In order to keep track of alternate replacements, use the google form [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/GZqMAi4kKDaVP5o66__;!!PtGJab4!…> to communicate who the alternate is replacing and for which period. This information will be publicly posted so that the Team is aware at any time who is active. Alternate Assignment –wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/-wC7Cg>. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

8 7

Post call | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 18 November 2021
by Terri Agnew Nov. 18, 2021

Nov. 18, 2021

Dear all, All recordings for the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team held on Thursday, 18 November 2021 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/3AC7Cg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master Calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…>. These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/hQIuCg>. Thank you! Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Instructions
by Sarah Wyld Nov. 18, 2021

Nov. 18, 2021

Hello team, In an effort to help make it easier to understand and adhere to our instructions, I’ve put them in chart form: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HoNZP_LfeS3TOG_9VBmgHoawg1QauyR68yg… Perhaps if we fill out column C as we go, we can get through this all effectively as a team! (I’m happy to turn over ownership of this doc to ICANN if that’s desireable!) -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld(a)tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

1 0