March 2022 - GNSO-Accuracy-ST

Description of current accuracy requirements and enforcements - staff support team suggestion
by Marika Konings March 16, 2022

March 16, 2022

Dear All, Based on the discussions to date, the staff support team would like to put forward a suggestion in the hope that this conversation around the ‘working definition’ can be considered complete for now so that the group can focus on other pertinent issues. As we have explained previously, our understanding of the reference to a ‘working definition’ as part of assignment #1 was to ensure that whenever there would be a reference to ‘accuracy requirements’, there would be a common understanding of what these entail today. That does NOT preclude future discussion and/or consideration of what these should be, but that conversation needs to be informed by the findings of assignment #1 and #2. As such, we would like to propose the following: Instead of using the term ‘working definition’ which has led to confusion, the Accuracy Scoping Team instead confirms that the following is its understanding of CURRENT accuracy requirements and enforcements. This understanding does not preclude in any way possible changes to these requirements and enforcement in the future based on the work of the scoping team and/or subsequent efforts. Accuracy under the current requirements, as spelled out in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) as well as Consensus Policies, is understood as syntactic accuracy of the registration data elements 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. In addition, upon notification of an alleged inaccuracy or if the Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information, the Registrar must take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy and correct inaccuracy. Additional verification procedures apply if the registrar has any information suggesting that contact information is incorrect. If a Registered Name Holder willfully provides inaccurate or unreliable registration data information, the registrar will take additional action to terminate, suspend or place a registration on hold. Furthermore, in addition to the requirements in the RAA and Consensus Policies, a number of Registry Agreements also contain some specific requirements in relation to accuracy that apply to that specific TLD, such as, for example, .AERO, .BANK or any spec 13 Registry operator (see for further details https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/spe…) Again, agreeing on this description of what is currently required and enforced, does not preclude a conversation about what the different parties think it should evolve to (or not) based on data that is gathered as part of assignment #2, but that conversation needs to be informed by that data in order to be productive. We hope this is helpful. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Caitlin, Berry and Marika

3 2

Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting
by Michael Palage March 16, 2022

March 16, 2022

Hello Sarah, I was listening to the first 45 minutes of the Phase 2 Small Team call this morning and you made an interesting point about Registrars doing their own verification of Requestors, and not necessarily relying on the authentication of a third party as envisioned by SSAD. I just had a couple of follow-up questions which I think would be enlightening to the work we are doing here in this Working Group. 1. Can you confirm the scope/number of registrars that you have spoken with that do not intend to rely upon any third party authentication, but will instead rely upon their own internal verification/authentication? 2. Could you please shed any light on the validation that TUCOWS does in connection with TACO requestors. Specifically does TUCOWS have a heightened verification / authentication / accuracy check for requestors, or is it using the same guidelines as set forth in the 2013 RAA. My apologizes in advance if this question got answered in the last 45 min of the call. Best regards, Michael From: Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 8:18 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>; Volker Greimann <volker.greimann(a)centralnic.com>; Michael Palage <michael(a)palage.com> Cc: Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting Hi all, Alan – yes, wouldn’t the registrant (data subject) be the authority on whether the data is accurate? And so the registrar must update (rectify) the registration data as soon as the registrant informs them of the inaccuracy. -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they <mailto:swyld@tucows.com> swyld(a)tucows.com From: Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: March 15, 2022 11:21 PM To: Volker Greimann <mailto:volker.greimann@centralnic.com> ; Michael Palage <mailto:michael@palage.com> Cc: Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting "Under the GDPR, as the other extreme, data is fully 100% accurate if it "accurately" reflects the data provided by the registrant." GDPR (Article 5, Section 1(d)) says that "every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay" Alan At 2022-03-07 08:26 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Michael, I do not understand your hesitation to call it a definition, or even a working definition as that is the exact terminology that the council has tasked us with. If we cannot even agree on a definition, how are we supposed to make progress on the more complicated issues? As to the question of the term of accuracy, I believe we have already established that there are varying interpretations, and ultimately, our definition within the ICANN context has to flow from the definition. Looking at dictionaries may be helpful, but does not solve the conundrum of context. I disagree with Stephanie that accuracy needs to be a binary choice as there can be various levels of accuracy in our context. For example, a data set that just uses the wrong formatting may not be 100% accurate in the dictionary sense, but is still accurate enough to qualify for "sufficiently accurate to meet the purposes", even if it is not fully accurate in the meaning of the 2013 RAA, which may need some revision to be more generous towards registrants in some cases. Under the GDPR, as the other extreme, data is fully 100% accurate if it "accurately" reflects the data provided by the registrant. So to answer your Question #1: I feel that option (b) "Degree of correctness" is a better reflection of the facts on the ground than a binary choice. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached. On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 8:32 PM Michael Palage <michael(a)palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> > wrote: Hello All, I am looking forward to a productive ICANN73 public session tomorrow. I spent the past several days trying to digest all of the exchanges that took place last Thursday. While I think we are close to wrapping up our work on Assignments 1 & 2, I think it would be constructive to quickly level set and make sure we are all on the same page to minimize potential future confusion. Part of my level setting involved going back to the original GNSO Councilâ€™s charge to the Scoping Team which asked is there â€œan agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations.â€ See https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+… This task at first blush seems simple enough, but as we have learned there have been several concerns raised in connection with the use of the term â€œdefinitionâ€ and the meaning of â€œaccuracy.â€ Therefore, instead of using the term â€œdefinitionâ€ as proposed by the GNSO Council I propose that we use the phrase â€œcurrent contractual requirements and enforcement construct.â€ I believe this should meet the concerns of the RrSG that have repeatedly raised concerns about â€œproviding a definitionâ€ and the concerns of the GAC and others about how a definition might bias future discussions. Is there any objection to us using the phrase â€œcurrent contractual requirements and enforcement construct?â€ If so please explain your objection and proposed alternative suggestion. Next we need to tackle what I have deemed the accuracy conundrum. The intervention by Stephanie this past week reminded me of some previous research that I was doing which I decided to revisit. I think Stephanie hit the nail on the head when she talked about how â€œaccuracyâ€ to most people conveys a binary choice, e.g. the data is accurate or is the data inaccurate. It is a black or white answer with no room for grey. In fact this seemed to align closely with the RrSG proposed â€œcurrent contractual requirements and enforcement construct.â€ If the data collected meets syntactical validation and either the email or phone number was operationally verified, then the data provided by the Registrant was â€œaccurateâ€ per their interpretation of the 2013 RAA. So I decided to spend a couple of hours researching the definition and origins of the word â€œaccuracyâ€ online and with an old school trip to the local library. I believe this definition of the word â€œaccuracyâ€ best describes the conundrum that we as a group find ourselves. noun, plural 1. the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness. 2. Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def. 6). 3. Mathematics. the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def. 5). Source Dictionary.com Now the first definition â€œbeing true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defectâ€ is a rather high bar, particularly if you are applying this bar to all registration data elements processed like some working group members have advocated. However, that bar is substantially lower if free from defect simply means that the data collected by the Registrar was syntactically correct and a Registrar at a point in time got an affirmative response from either telephone number or an email. Alternatively, the third definition of a â€œdegree of correctnessâ€ suggests something other than a binary accurate or inaccurate response. Therefore to help steer our future discussions I would like everyone to answer the following question: Question #1 For purposes of our Working Group the term accuracy should be defined as: [ ] true, correct and free from error; or [ ] degree of correctness; (PICK ONE) I think once we get clarity and/or agreement on these points, we should have a more clearly defined path forward for our post ICANN73 call. Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list GNSO-Accuracy-ST(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-Accuracy-ST@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list GNSO-Accuracy-ST(a)icann.org <mailto:GNSO-Accuracy-ST@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

2 2

Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting
by Michael Palage March 16, 2022

March 16, 2022

Sarah, I agree that a data subject notifying their Registrar to timely update their registration data is an important consideration in determining the accuracy of that data set. Likewise I think getting an affirmative response from a Registrant regarding the accuracy of the data in response to a legitimate inquiry is also an another important data point in any analysis. Additionally, as we have heard from ICANN Compliance the provision of patently false data, e.g. Mickey Mouse, is problematic regardless of what the data subject represents. Best regards, Michael From: Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 8:18 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>; Volker Greimann <volker.greimann(a)centralnic.com>; Michael Palage <michael(a)palage.com> Cc: Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting Hi all, Alan – yes, wouldn’t the registrant (data subject) be the authority on whether the data is accurate? And so the registrar must update (rectify) the registration data as soon as the registrant informs them of the inaccuracy. -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they <mailto:swyld@tucows.com> swyld(a)tucows.com From: <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Alan Greenberg Sent: March 15, 2022 11:21 PM To: <mailto:volker.greimann@centralnic.com> Volker Greimann; <mailto:michael@palage.com> Michael Palage Cc: <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting "Under the GDPR, as the other extreme, data is fully 100% accurate if it "accurately" reflects the data provided by the registrant." GDPR (Article 5, Section 1(d)) says that "every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay" Alan At 2022-03-07 08:26 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hi Michael, I do not understand your hesitation to call it a definition, or even a working definition as that is the exact terminology that the council has tasked us with. If we cannot even agree on a definition, how are we supposed to make progress on the more complicated issues? As to the question of the term of accuracy, I believe we have already established that there are varying interpretations, and ultimately, our definition within the ICANN context has to flow from the definition. Looking at dictionaries may be helpful, but does not solve the conundrum of context. I disagree with Stephanie that accuracy needs to be a binary choice as there can be various levels of accuracy in our context. For example, a data set that just uses the wrong formatting may not be 100% accurate in the dictionary sense, but is still accurate enough to qualify for "sufficiently accurate to meet the purposes", even if it is not fully accurate in the meaning of the 2013 RAA, which may need some revision to be more generous towards registrants in some cases. Under the GDPR, as the other extreme, data is fully 100% accurate if it "accurately" reflects the data provided by the registrant. So to answer your Question #1: I feel that option (b) "Degree of correctness" is a better reflection of the facts on the ground than a binary choice. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: <http://www.key-systems.net/> www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached. On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 8:32 PM Michael Palage < <mailto:michael@palage.com> michael(a)palage.com> wrote: Hello All, I am looking forward to a productive ICANN73 public session tomorrow. I spent the past several days trying to digest all of the exchanges that took place last Thursday. While I think we are close to wrapping up our work on Assignments 1 & 2, I think it would be constructive to quickly level set and make sure we are all on the same page to minimize potential future confusion. Part of my level setting involved going back to the original GNSO Councilâ€™s charge to the Scoping Team which asked is there â€œan agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations.â€ See <https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+…> https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+… This task at first blush seems simple enough, but as we have learned there have been several concerns raised in connection with the use of the term â€œdefinitionâ€ and the meaning of â€œaccuracy.â€ Therefore, instead of using the term â€œdefinitionâ€ as proposed by the GNSO Council I propose that we use the phrase â€œcurrent contractual requirements and enforcement construct.â€ I believe this should meet the concerns of the RrSG that have repeatedly raised concerns about â€œproviding a definitionâ€ and the concerns of the GAC and others about how a definition might bias future discussions. Is there any objection to us using the phrase â€œcurrent contractual requirements and enforcement construct?â€ If so please explain your objection and proposed alternative suggestion. Next we need to tackle what I have deemed the accuracy conundrum. The intervention by Stephanie this past week reminded me of some previous research that I was doing which I decided to revisit. I think Stephanie hit the nail on the head when she talked about how â€œaccuracyâ€ to most people conveys a binary choice, e.g. the data is accurate or is the data inaccurate. It is a black or white answer with no room for grey. In fact this seemed to align closely with the RrSG proposed â€œcurrent contractual requirements and enforcement construct.â€ If the data collected meets syntactical validation and either the email or phone number was operationally verified, then the data provided by the Registrant was â€œaccurateâ€ per their interpretation of the 2013 RAA. So I decided to spend a couple of hours researching the definition and origins of the word â€œaccuracyâ€ online and with an old school trip to the local library. I believe this definition of the word â€œaccuracyâ€ best describes the conundrum that we as a group find ourselves. noun, plural 1. the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness. 2. Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def. 6). 3. Mathematics. the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def. 5). Source Dictionary.com Now the first definition â€œbeing true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defectâ€ is a rather high bar, particularly if you are applying this bar to all registration data elements processed like some working group members have advocated. However, that bar is substantially lower if free from defect simply means that the data collected by the Registrar was syntactically correct and a Registrar at a point in time got an affirmative response from either telephone number or an email. Alternatively, the third definition of a â€œdegree of correctnessâ€ suggests something other than a binary accurate or inaccurate response. Therefore to help steer our future discussions I would like everyone to answer the following question: Question #1 For purposes of our Working Group the term accuracy should be defined as: [ ] true, correct and free from error; or [ ] degree of correctness; (PICK ONE) I think once we get clarity and/or agreement on these points, we should have a more clearly defined path forward for our post ICANN73 call. Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list <mailto:GNSO-Accuracy-ST@icann.org> GNSO-Accuracy-ST(a)icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list <mailto:GNSO-Accuracy-ST@icann.org> GNSO-Accuracy-ST(a)icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

2 1

**Duration correction | REMINDER | Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 16, 2022

March 16, 2022

**UPDATE: The duration of the meetings are 90 minutes, this has been updated below. Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZENk9yN0RqOUUzaGx2eGV0QT09<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZE…> 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 <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 <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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/6RQiCw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/3sse849u <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/3sse849u__;!!PtGJab4!tGngcAI…> ONLY for Members and Alternates * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select 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 <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

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Devan Reed March 16, 2022

March 16, 2022

Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZENk9yN0RqOUUzaGx2eGV0QT09<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZE…> 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 <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 <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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/6RQiCw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/3sse849u <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/3sse849u__;!!PtGJab4!tGngcAI…> ONLY for Members and Alternates * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select 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 <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

1 0

Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Level Setting
by Alan Greenberg March 16, 2022

March 16, 2022

"Under the GDPR, as the other extreme, data is fully 100% accurate if it "accurately" reflects the data provided by the registrant." GDPR (Article 5, Section 1(d)) says that "every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay" Alan At 2022-03-07 08:26 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: >Hi Michael, > >I do not understand your hesitation to call it a >definition, or even a working definition as that >is the exact terminology that the council has >tasked us with. If we cannot even agree on a >definition, how are we supposed to make progress >on the more complicated issues? > >As to the question of the term of accuracy, I >believe we have already established that there >are varying interpretations, and ultimately, our >definition within the ICANN context has to flow >from the definition. Looking at dictionaries may >be helpful, but does not solve the conundrum of >context. I disagree with Stephanie that accuracy >needs to be a binary choice as there can be >various levels of accuracy in our context. > >For example, a data set that just uses the wrong >formatting may not be 100% accurate in the >dictionary sense, but is still accurate enough >to qualify for "sufficiently accurate to meet >the purposes", even if it is not fully accurate >in the meaning of the 2013 RAA, which may need >some revision to be more generous towards >registrants in some cases. Under the GDPR, as >the other extreme, data is fully 100% accurate >if it "accurately" reflects the data provided by the registrant. > > So to answer your Question #1: >I feel that option (b) "Degree of correctness" >is a better reflection of the facts on the ground than a binary choice. > > > >-- >Volker A. Greimann >General Counsel and Policy Manager >KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH > >T: +49 6894 9396901 >M: +49 6894 9396851 >F: +49 6894 9396851 >W: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net > >Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the >local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 >CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner > >Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a >company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. > >This email and any files transmitted are >confidential and intended only for the person(s) >directly addressed. If you are not the intended >recipient, any use, copying, transmission, >distribution, or other forms of dissemination is >strictly prohibited. If you have received this >email in error, please notify the sender >immediately and permanently delete this email >with any files that may be attached. > > >On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 8:32 PM Michael Palage ><<mailto:michael@palage.com>michael(a)palage.com> wrote: > >Hello All, > > > >I am looking forward to a productive ICANN73 public session tomorrow. > > > >I spent the past several days trying to digest >all of the exchanges that took place last >Thursday. While I think we are close to wrapping >up our work on Assignments 1 & 2, I think it >would be constructive to quickly level set and >make sure we are all on the same page to minimize potential future confusion. > > > >Part of my level setting involved going back to >the original GNSO Councilâs charge to the >Scoping Team which asked is there âan agreed >definition of registration data accuracy and, if >not, consider what working definitions should be >used in the context of the Scoping Team's >deliberations.â See ><https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+…>https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+… > > > > >This task at first blush seems simple enough, >but as we have learned there have been several >concerns raised in connection with the use of >the term âdefinitionâ and the meaning of >âaccuracy.â Therefore, instead of using the >term âdefinitionâ as proposed by the GNSO >Council I propose that we use the phrase >âcurrent contractual requirements and >enforcement construct.â I believe this should >meet the concerns of the RrSG that have >repeatedly raised concerns about âproviding a >definitionâ and the concerns of the GAC and >others about how a definition might bias future discussions. > > > >Is there any objection to us using the phrase >âcurrent contractual requirements and >enforcement construct?â If so please explain >your objection and proposed alternative suggestion. > > > >Next we need to tackle what I have deemed the >accuracy conundrum. The intervention by >Stephanie this past week reminded me of some >previous research that I was doing which I >decided to revisit. I think Stephanie hit the >nail on the head when she talked about how >âaccuracyâ to most people conveys a binary >choice, e.g. the data is accurate or is the data >inaccurate. It is a black or white answer with >no room for grey. In fact this seemed to align >closely with the RrSG proposed âcurrent >contractual requirements and enforcement >construct.â If the data collected meets >syntactical validation and either the email or >phone number was operationally verified, then >the data provided by the Registrant was >âaccurateâ per their interpretation of the 2013 RAA. > > > >So I decided to spend a couple of hours >researching the definition and origins of the >word âaccuracyâ online and with an old >school trip to the local library. I believe this >definition of the word âaccuracyâ best >describes the conundrum that we as a group find ourselves. > > > >noun, plural > >1. the condition or quality of being >true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or >defect; precision or exactness; correctness. > >2. Chemistry, Physics. the extent to >which a given measurement agrees with the >standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def. 6). > >3. Mathematics. the degree of >correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def. 5). > > > >Source Dictionary.com > > > >Now the first definition âbeing true, correct, >or exact; freedom from error or defectâ is a >rather high bar, particularly if you are >applying this bar to all registration data >elements processed like some working group >members have advocated. However, that bar is >substantially lower if free from defect simply >means that the data collected by the Registrar >was syntactically correct and a Registrar at a >point in time got an affirmative response from >either telephone number or an email. > > > >Alternatively, the third definition of a >âdegree of correctnessâ suggests something >other than a binary accurate or inaccurate >response. Therefore to help steer our future >discussions I would like everyone to answer the following question: > > > >Question #1 > > > >For purposes of our Working Group the term accuracy should be defined as: > > > >[ ] true, correct and free from error; or > > > >[ ] degree of correctness; > > > >(PICK ONE) > > > >I think once we get clarity and/or agreement on >these points, we should have a more clearly >defined path forward for our post ICANN73 call. > > > >Best regards, > > > >Michael > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list ><mailto:GNSO-Accuracy-ST@icann.org>GNSO-Accuracy-ST(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st > >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >and the website Terms of Service >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) >You can visit the Mailman link above to change >your membership status or configuration, >including unsubscribing, setting digest-style >delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > >_______________________________________________ >GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list >GNSO-Accuracy-ST(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st > >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the >website Terms of Service >(https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can >visit the Mailman link above to change your >membership status or configuration, including >unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or >disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

2 2

Survey Reminder - Please Complete
by Michael Palage March 16, 2022

March 16, 2022

Hello All, I want to thank everyone for a constructive meeting last week. In advance of our meeting on Thursday, I would like to remind everyone to complete the survey. To date only 7 members including myself. Do not worry Volker, I will disclose my vote and remove it from the overall tabulations so as to not influence the final vote. However, consistent with my eat your own dog food style of leadership, I personally complete every task that I ask the group to do. This is where you can go to vote – https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6 [forms.gle] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6__;!!PtGJab4! rQG6Xsn6taQEsnZhno3se_bnN0yrUB9v2iNWReklt7NWvLef8aahfIHz_HmxYSmMDQbB2LAa0A$> . Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able to participate. To view the responses, you can go here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0 /viewanalytics [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjV hU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0/viewanalytics__;!!PtGJab4!rQG6Xsn6taQEsnZhno3se _bnN0yrUB9v2iNWReklt7NWvLef8aahfIHz_HmxYSmMDQZ-aLZVTQ$> . Best regards, Michael

3 3

Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #21 on Thursday 17 March at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings March 15, 2022

March 15, 2022

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 17 March at 14.00 UTC. For those of you that were not able to attend the ICANN73 session, please review the recording of the meeting (ICANN73 session<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/05G-ap9lx75HHcPzgmIPTqc1CIrv8ZN_46c1KaxsOiB…>). As a reminder: * RDA Scoping Team Members to review and provide input on the Gap Analysis Proposal Review in light of ICANN73 sessoin (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit) Note: this document was compiled by Support Staff in an effort to distill the proposals made by Scoping Team Members, including upsides and downsides noted by either the proposer or other team members in subsequent discussions. The document is not meant to restrict the group into choosing one proposal, but rather, the group should review all proposals and see which proposals provide a viable path to forward progress. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #21 Thursday 17 March at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (10 minutes) * Brief recap from ICANN73 session<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/05G-ap9lx75HHcPzgmIPTqc1CIrv8ZN_46c1KaxsOiB…> – see also https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-March/000336.html 1. Accuracy working definition / construct (30 minutes) * See staff support team proposal (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-March/000354.html) * If staff proposal is not supported under a), review input received (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGdNLjOjhmJnj-iDaGvcVnv1gZ5tQu5C/edit) * Review survey responses (see https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdL-R4Tk7pP86bMIRMX1tH1IA9-UgbHFYV…) * Confirm next steps 3. Continue review of Gap Analysis Data Collection Proposals (30 minutes) (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit) a. Review Scoping Team input on proposals (upside, downside and possible next steps) b. Confirm next steps 1. Additional questions for ICANN Compliance (20 minutes) (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1arlKdQkbRkE1LuurmDdd-PZP184_AdFm/edit?p…) * Introduce questions (Alan, Michael) * EPDP Team input * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 24 March at 14.00 UTC)

2 1

SOI Update
by Michael Palage March 12, 2022

March 12, 2022

Hello Everyone, I just want to provide the following SOI update. Although I do not believe this update has a direct impact on my work as Chair, I want to error on the side of over disclosure in part because these activities involve other members of the ICANN Community. Yesterday, the FDIC and FinCEN launched a Tech Sprint focused on Measuring the Effectiveness of Digital Identity Proofing for Digital Financial Services, see https://www.fdic.gov/fditech/techsprints/measuring-effectiveness.html Myself and my business partner Frank Cona were selected to participate in one of eight teams participating in this Tech Sprint. In total, 6 out of the 8 members in our team are active in the ICANN community. While individual team members are able to disclosure their individual participation, I am not aware of any public disclosure by FDIC and FinCEN of all participants at this time. However, rest assured none of the other 4 ICANN community members are active on this Working Group. While this is a rather intense competition that will last approximately 1 month, I do not see it interfering with any of my Chair responsibilities. Based on past Tech Sprint best practices all participants as well as their presentations will be made available on the Tech Sprint website, see https://www.fdic.gov/fditech/techsprints.html Best regards, Michael

1 0

Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 03 March 2022
by Terri Agnew March 9, 2022

March 9, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team held on Thursday, 03 March 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/nxIiCw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master Calendar <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

2 2