June 2022 - GNSO-Accuracy-ST

ICANN74| Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 13:15 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 9, 2022

June 9, 2022

As stated on the call, the next Team meeting will be during ICANN74: Tuesday, 14 June at 13:15 CEST (11:15 UTC). Please see the ICANN74 Schedule for join information. * ICANN74 wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/KRR1Cw * Please be sure your registration is up-to-date (in-person or virtual)! * Entrance to session rooms that are full will be limited to attendees who have signed up for the session. Anyone may join virtually. * Zoom participation links will be published 24 hours before the ICANN74 sessions start. For more information on how to participate, visit: https://74.schedule.icann.org/attend [74.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/74.schedule.icann.org/attend__;!!PtGJab4…> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

**Starting in 15 minutes | Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 09 June 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 9, 2022

June 9, 2022

**starting in 15 minutes Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 09 June 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/VA51Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/ydw2eb68 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/ydw2eb68__;!!PtGJab4!-JKek44…> 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 so it is captured in the recording. * 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

Write up for assignment #1 & #2 - addressing outstanding items
by Marika Konings June 9, 2022

June 9, 2022

Dear All, As discussed during today’s call, the staff support team has gone through the remaining comments in the write up for assignment #1 and #2 and put forward a proposed approach for resolving these remaining comments. You can find these proposed approaches in the attached document highlighted in yellow and numbered. If your group cannot live with the proposed approach, or has an alternative approach that the scoping team should consider, please share these on the mailing list by indicating the number of the staff support team proposed approach item as well as your rationale and/or alternative proposal. The group can then discuss during next week’s meeting how to address any items that have been flagged. Please flag any items at the latest by Wednesday 8 June. Thanks, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

4 4

Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] [Ext] RE: [EXTERNAL] Write up for assignment #1 & #2 - addressing outstanding items
by Marika Konings June 8, 2022

June 8, 2022

Thanks, Melina. For all remaining comments in the document, the staff support team put forward a proposed approach for how to address these remaining items (highlighted in yellow). These proposed approaches have not been applied to the document yet to allow everyone an opportunity to review the proposed approaches before making the changes. As no concerns had been raised on this particular comment, the staff support team had suggested to apply the changes as proposed by the GAC. However, the proposed approach has been flagged by the CPH as an item for further discussion (see email from Beth below and comment from CPH “CPH: As this already appears, as agreed when the team drafted this, we don’t believe it needs to be restated in the body of the document.”) Maybe the GAC and CPH reps can connect prior to the meeting to see if there is a way to come to a compromise on this issue? It seems that it is only a matter of placement of the text, whether it is in a footnote or the main text, so hopefully that is something that can be worked out prior to the meeting? Best regards, Marika From: STROUNGI Melina <Melina.STROUNGI(a)ec.europa.eu> Date: Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 09:33 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Michael Palage <michael(a)palage.com> Cc: "gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] [EXTERNAL] Write up for assignment #1 & #2 - addressing outstanding items Dear Marika, Many thanks to you and all staff members for your work on this. The GAC has made a long standing comment in assignment 1 (weeks ago) which, to my knowledge, has not been contested by anyone in the group and actually has been explicitly accepted by some members. However we do not see it been embedded in the text. Please add the following sentence (basically bringing part of the footnote up to a more prominent place in the text): "In terms of enforcement, according to ICANN Compliance, this includes cases where the name or contact information of the Registered Name Holder pass the format validation but are patently inaccurate [*add the footnote here]." Then for the footnote we make the following comment also agreed by members: Please add ' as cited by ICANN Compliance' or a similar reference to demonstrate that this example came from ICANN Compliance. Since we propose to move the part "if the registered name holder...inaccurate" in the main text, it can also be deleted from the footnote. Since this is a last chance to comment we would hope you can implement these changes also in highlight. thanks, Melina From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Elizabeth Bacon Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 10:19 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] [EXTERNAL] Write up for assignment #1 & #2 - addressing outstanding items Hello All, Thank you Marika and staff for pulling this together. The CPH has provided further feedback on items #3 and #12. Regarding item #3, we also wanted to provide some input on the status of this work. AFAV was paused in light of the EPDP on Registration Data. There were two RFIs (2014 and 2017), however the solutions were not practical or applicable globally. Pending the implementation of all phases of the EPDP, the RrSG and ICANN agree to review whether a new RFI is needed in light of the changes since 2014/2017. Further implementation is paused. Many thanks, Beth on behalf of the CPH From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 12:01 PM To: gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> <gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Write up for assignment #1 & #2 - addressing outstanding items CAUTION: This email came from outside your organization. Don’t trust emails, links, or attachments from senders that seem suspicious or you are not expecting. ________________________________ Dear All, As discussed during today’s call, the staff support team has gone through the remaining comments in the write up for assignment #1 and #2 and put forward a proposed approach for resolving these remaining comments. You can find these proposed approaches in the attached document highlighted in yellow and numbered. If your group cannot live with the proposed approach, or has an alternative approach that the scoping team should consider, please share these on the mailing list by indicating the number of the staff support team proposed approach item as well as your rationale and/or alternative proposal. The group can then discuss during next week’s meeting how to address any items that have been flagged. Please flag any items at the latest by Wednesday 8 June. Thanks, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

1 0

Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #33 on Thursday 9 June at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings June 7, 2022

June 7, 2022

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 9 June at 14.00 UTC. As a reminder: 1. Scoping Team to review the highlighted portions of the write-up and flag any proposals (using the corresponding number) to indicate proposed compromises that are unacceptable (see email circulated on 2 June - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-June/000484.html) For proposals that are flagged as unacceptable, please provide alternate language by COB Wednesday, 8 June. 2. Scoping team to provide any further comments, and especially alternative proposals for consideration, for section 2.1.2 (measurement of whether current goals are met) ASAP, but no later than Wednesday, 8 June. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #33 Thursday 9 June at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 1. ICANN74 Proposed Agenda (10 minutes) * Welcome * Brief recap – Scoping Team assignment, current state of work & planned outreach to the EDPB * Finalize write up for assignments #1 and #2 for delivery to GNSO Council * Consider any outstanding items * Confirm deadline for final review * Confirm next steps * AOB 1. Write up for Section 2.1.2 – Measurement of whether current goals are met (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CYs9mLHsKcZevmZtFrQBDXbv_nkQ5PKe/edit) (15 minutes) * Review any further input received * Confirm next steps 1. Write up for assignments #1 & #2 (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEYrDyntrgm-tcIavPMJndU/edit) (30 minutes) * Consider any ‘cannot live with’ items flagged and/or alternative proposals put forward * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (ICANN74 session on Tuesday 14 June from 11.15 – 12.30 UTC (13.15 – 14.30 local time)

1 0

Letter from ICANN Org to EC - Re: Notes and action items: RDA Scoping Team Meeting #32 - 2 June 2022
by Brian Gutterman June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

Dear RDA Scoping Team Members, FYI, as discussed during the call yesterday with @Elena Plexida<mailto:elena.plexida@icann.org>, please see here<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-viola-et-al-0…> (up on the correspondence page<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence> as well) a letter from ICANN Org to representatives of the European Commission soliciting their help with introducing the issue of registration data accuracy and, in particular, steps that can be taken within the boundaries of the GDPR, to the level of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) in accordance with Article 64(2) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Best, Brian From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 2:28 PM To: "gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Notes and action items: RDA Scoping Team Meeting #32 - 2 June 2022 Dear RDA Scoping Team Members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. The next call will be Thursday, 9 June at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items 1. Policy Support Staff to send an updated write-up of assignments 1 and 2. The updated write-up will include numbered and highlighted proposed compromises for areas where members of the Scoping Team disagree. (sent – please see email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-June/000484.html>) 2. Following receipt of the updated write-up (under action item 1), Scoping Team to review the highlighted portions of the write-up and flag any proposals (using the corresponding number) to indicate proposed compromises that are unacceptable. For proposals that are flagged as unacceptable, please provide alternate language by COB Wednesday, 8 June. 3. Scoping team to provide any further comments, and especially alternative proposals for consideration, for section 2.1.2 (measurement of whether current goals are met) ASAP, but no later than Wednesday, 8 June. Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #32 Thursday 2 June at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 2. Scenarios for EDPB - see update from ICANN org (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-May/000444.html) (15 minutes) * Continue review of Scoping Team input (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rCBaQ175p_VrP6DtxLUuuoO9Uv5C2qp_/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rCBaQ175p_Vr…>) - Invited Elena Plexida to the call, as she is a leader of this engagement work - As part of the government engagement team at ICANN, engaging with DPAs is part of my work - Plan to send a high-level letter to the EC later this week. The idea is to ask whether the EC would be willing to help introduce this issue at the EDPB. - Learned to never ask a question at trial that you don’t know the answer to – would assume this formal request would have a certain time element attached to it - The last formal exchange with the DPAs was in 2020 – at that time, at the urging of the EC, ICANN engaged with the Belgian DPA. When ICANN had this exchange with the Belgian authority, it was the Belgian authority that said that these questions are global and this exchange should occur at the level of the EDPB. In the meantime, ICANN org will be doing background work with the scenarios. - This week, ICANN will send a letter to the EC will submit a letter to the EDPB, if the EC says no, ICANN will move forward with the engagement independently. - Couldn’t this question just be asked without a formal letter? - Asking the EC formally in order to strengthen the request; having the EC as a political ally is helpful – however, ICANN can still reach out to the EDPB independently. There have been times where ICANN uses examples that are too high-level. Would be helpful to better build out this program. - Understand that there will be interactions with the EC; we even have someone on this team. This is just a confirmation that the EC will work with us. - Do not think that having the answers to these scenarios should not hold up the work in the accuracy scoping team – do not see why the work needs to be paused until the answers are received. EC does not have control over what other institutions (like the EDPB) do. The EC, however, cannot be the penholder for the scenarios; ICANN should just submit the scenarios directly to be the most efficient. That said, will take a look at the wording of the scenarios. - The question at hand is a procedural one – will the EC help send the questions. - Appreciate that ICANN is taking another approach with the EC; agree that this is ICANN’s work to do – appreciate the update - Thank you for engaging with this team. The group is looking at providing access to data to the US, so that has international data transfer aspects to it - Will the community be able to see the scenarios before they are shared? - ICANN is making the request; the community is not making a risk assessment for them – not sure we need to get into the specifics of the scenario now - Regardless of the outcome of the EC request, ICANN will still have to submit the scenarios. Believe there has been an outgoing request for a DPIA for years and believe this engagement should also involve the community. - Currently, ICANN is in a tricky space – the assessment will have a lot of privileged and confidential data in it. Have not yet discussed what can be shared with the community, though would like to maintain an open dialogue. - At what point do domain name holders have a right to know how ICANN is processing their data? GDPR provides that data subjects can inquire how their data is processed. - Expanded on original ALAC comments – added additional flavor. If the group is going to ask questions about other types of accuracy, that is something that should be discussed here – maybe want to look past what the 2013 RAA says and look at other scenarios. - Agree that scenario 1 doesn’t seem fruitful. Scenario 2 seems especially worthwhile, particularly if we targeted lists of phishing or abusive domain names. No objection to Scenario 3 or 4. - Have to be as specific as possible in order to get specific and meaningful guidance. Agree that the merit of asking about Scenario 1 is very limited. The real question is can I have a legitimate interest in data that is not publicly available. Periodic audits need more explanation (perhaps in a footnote) in order to be easily understood by the EDPB. - Propose to eliminate Scenario 1, that could help the drafting - I think this group is done at this point – propose to draw a line and end the discussion here. - There is an incredible rise in phishing and domain name abuse – this should be used in communications. ccTLDs have done great work in reducing ccTLDs issues – if there are examples of communications that have gone back and forth, it would be helpful to see these - ccTLDs may have an easier exchange with their respective DPAs, but this isn’t necessarily consistent - Believe review of ccTLDs to determine precedent would be very helpful - * Confirm next steps 1. Write up for Section 2.1.2 – Measurement of whether current goals are met (seehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1CYs9mLHsKcZevmZtFrQBDXbv_nkQ5PKe/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1CYs9mLHsKcZe…>) (15 minutes) * Review input received * There was a placeholder in the write-up regarding whether current goals are met – the conversation around EDPB engagement was one part of that; the other proposals are also covered in this write-up. The goal is to integrate this into the write-up. There have been some editorial edits that have been made. There was also a question about flagging incentives. This could be flagged as part of the survey. * There are two specific recommendations within this document. There might be a need to pause the work while waiting to see if proposals requiring access to data are worked out. * Question: how could assignment 3 start without measuring accuracy? Support Staff is interested to hear how this is envisioned. * CPs forgot to add their comments – they were imported into a copy of the document rather than the shared document. Will add in shortly * Hesitant to go down these roads and scope out possible tools and they are not in compliance with GDPR per an EPDB decision, concerned about wasting time. Question: what constructive work could we do if we do not pause? * Concerned that waiting would delay things even further * The survey to registrars should be made mandatory * Idea is to finalize this document soon so that it can be submitted shortly after ICANN74 – if there are any additional suggestions, these need to come in ASAP so that the group can review during ICANN74 * Confirm next steps 1. Write up for assignments #1 & #2 (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEYrDyntrgm-tcIavPMJndU/edit[d…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEY…>) (30 minutes) * Continue review of input received * Support staff has gone through the document and made suggestions regarding how to proceed on the issues. Trying to call out a possible way to deal with disagreements. Suggest sharing the document after this call – could highlight Support Staff’s proposed approach. Ask the group to review and determine if there is anything that is unacceptable * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 9 June at 14.00 UTC)

1 0

Notes and action items: RDA Scoping Team Meeting #32 - 2 June 2022
by Caitlin Tubergen June 2, 2022

June 2, 2022

Dear RDA Scoping Team Members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. The next call will be Thursday, 9 June at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items 1. Policy Support Staff to send an updated write-up of assignments 1 and 2. The updated write-up will include numbered and highlighted proposed compromises for areas where members of the Scoping Team disagree. (sent – please see email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-June/000484.html>) 2. Following receipt of the updated write-up (under action item 1), Scoping Team to review the highlighted portions of the write-up and flag any proposals (using the corresponding number) to indicate proposed compromises that are unacceptable. For proposals that are flagged as unacceptable, please provide alternate language by COB Wednesday, 8 June. 3. Scoping team to provide any further comments, and especially alternative proposals for consideration, for section 2.1.2 (measurement of whether current goals are met) ASAP, but no later than Wednesday, 8 June. Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #32 Thursday 2 June at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 2. Scenarios for EDPB - see update from ICANN org (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-May/000444.html) (15 minutes) * Continue review of Scoping Team input (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rCBaQ175p_VrP6DtxLUuuoO9Uv5C2qp_/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rCBaQ175p_Vr…>) * Invited Elena Plexida to the call, as she is a leader of this engagement work * As part of the government engagement team at ICANN, engaging with DPAs is part of my work * Plan to send a high-level letter to the EC later this week. The idea is to ask whether the EC would be willing to help introduce this issue at the EDPB. * Learned to never ask a question at trial that you don’t know the answer to – would assume this formal request would have a certain time element attached to it * The last formal exchange with the DPAs was in 2020 – at that time, at the urging of the EC, ICANN engaged with the Belgian DPA. When ICANN had this exchange with the Belgian authority, it was the Belgian authority that said that these questions are global and this exchange should occur at the level of the EDPB. In the meantime, ICANN org will be doing background work with the scenarios. * This week, ICANN will send a letter to the EC will submit a letter to the EDPB, if the EC says no, ICANN will move forward with the engagement independently. * Couldn’t this question just be asked without a formal letter? * Asking the EC formally in order to strengthen the request; having the EC as a political ally is helpful – however, ICANN can still reach out to the EDPB independently. There have been times where ICANN uses examples that are too high-level. Would be helpful to better build out this program. * Understand that there will be interactions with the EC; we even have someone on this team. This is just a confirmation that the EC will work with us. * Do not think that having the answers to these scenarios should not hold up the work in the accuracy scoping team – do not see why the work needs to be paused until the answers are received. EC does not have control over what other institutions (like the EDPB) do. The EC, however, cannot be the penholder for the scenarios; ICANN should just submit the scenarios directly to be the most efficient. That said, will take a look at the wording of the scenarios. * The question at hand is a procedural one – will the EC help send the questions. * Appreciate that ICANN is taking another approach with the EC; agree that this is ICANN’s work to do – appreciate the update * Thank you for engaging with this team. The group is looking at providing access to data to the US, so that has international data transfer aspects to it * Will the community be able to see the scenarios before they are shared? * ICANN is making the request; the community is not making a risk assessment for them – not sure we need to get into the specifics of the scenario now * Regardless of the outcome of the EC request, ICANN will still have to submit the scenarios. Believe there has been an outgoing request for a DPIA for years and believe this engagement should also involve the community. * Currently, ICANN is in a tricky space – the assessment will have a lot of privileged and confidential data in it. Have not yet discussed what can be shared with the community, though would like to maintain an open dialogue. * At what point do domain name holders have a right to know how ICANN is processing their data? GDPR provides that data subjects can inquire how their data is processed. * Expanded on original ALAC comments – added additional flavor. If the group is going to ask questions about other types of accuracy, that is something that should be discussed here – maybe want to look past what the 2013 RAA says and look at other scenarios. * Agree that scenario 1 doesn’t seem fruitful. Scenario 2 seems especially worthwhile, particularly if we targeted lists of phishing or abusive domain names. No objection to Scenario 3 or 4. * Have to be as specific as possible in order to get specific and meaningful guidance. Agree that the merit of asking about Scenario 1 is very limited. The real question is can I have a legitimate interest in data that is not publicly available. Periodic audits need more explanation (perhaps in a footnote) in order to be easily understood by the EDPB. * Propose to eliminate Scenario 1, that could help the drafting * I think this group is done at this point – propose to draw a line and end the discussion here. * There is an incredible rise in phishing and domain name abuse – this should be used in communications. ccTLDs have done great work in reducing ccTLDs issues – if there are examples of communications that have gone back and forth, it would be helpful to see these * ccTLDs may have an easier exchange with their respective DPAs, but this isn’t necessarily consistent * Believe review of ccTLDs to determine precedent would be very helpful * * Confirm next steps 1. Write up for Section 2.1.2 – Measurement of whether current goals are met (seehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1CYs9mLHsKcZevmZtFrQBDXbv_nkQ5PKe/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1CYs9mLHsKcZe…>) (15 minutes) * Review input received * There was a placeholder in the write-up regarding whether current goals are met – the conversation around EDPB engagement was one part of that; the other proposals are also covered in this write-up. The goal is to integrate this into the write-up. There have been some editorial edits that have been made. There was also a question about flagging incentives. This could be flagged as part of the survey. * There are two specific recommendations within this document. There might be a need to pause the work while waiting to see if proposals requiring access to data are worked out. * Question: how could assignment 3 start without measuring accuracy? Support Staff is interested to hear how this is envisioned. * CPs forgot to add their comments – they were imported into a copy of the document rather than the shared document. Will add in shortly * Hesitant to go down these roads and scope out possible tools and they are not in compliance with GDPR per an EPDB decision, concerned about wasting time. Question: what constructive work could we do if we do not pause? * Concerned that waiting would delay things even further * The survey to registrars should be made mandatory * Idea is to finalize this document soon so that it can be submitted shortly after ICANN74 – if there are any additional suggestions, these need to come in ASAP so that the group can review during ICANN74 * Confirm next steps 1. Write up for assignments #1 & #2 (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEYrDyntrgm-tcIavPMJndU/edit[d…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEY…>) (30 minutes) * Continue review of input received * Support staff has gone through the document and made suggestions regarding how to proceed on the issues. Trying to call out a possible way to deal with disagreements. Suggest sharing the document after this call – could highlight Support Staff’s proposed approach. Ask the group to review and determine if there is anything that is unacceptable * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 9 June at 14.00 UTC)

1 0

Post call | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 02 June 2022
by Terri Agnew June 2, 2022

June 2, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team held on Thursday, 02 June 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/Ug51Cw> (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

1 0

Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 09 June 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 2, 2022

June 2, 2022

Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 09 June 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/VA51Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/ydw2eb68 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 so it is captured in the recording. * 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

**starting in 14 minutes | Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 02 June 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 2, 2022

June 2, 2022

**starting in 14 minutes Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 02 June 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/Ug51Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/mryna7dx [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/mryna7dx__;!!PtGJab4!7WgNv08…> 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 so it is captured in the recording. * 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