- GNSO-Accuracy-ST - lists.icann.org

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

ICANN74 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download
by Julie Bisland June 1, 2022

June 1, 2022

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report that the GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN74 is now available for download at https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/go.icann.org/gnsobriefing__;!!PtGJab4!rw…>. Happy reading! Best Regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

**REMINDER** Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 02 June 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland June 1, 2022

June 1, 2022

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

2 1

Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #32 on Thursday 2 June at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings May 31, 2022

May 31, 2022

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 2 June at 14.00 UTC. As a reminder: 1. EXTENDED: Scoping Team members to provide an update to their respective stakeholders group with respect to last week’s discussion about the draft EDPB communication, particularly with respect to scenario 2 and a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) of Scenario 2. Please provide any proposed updates by Wednesday, 1 June. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rCBaQ175p_VrP6DtxLUuuoO9Uv5C2qp_/edit 1. ❗️❗️❗️FINAL EXTENSION: Scoping Team members to review all comments received on the write-up and propose compromise language in comments form (where applicable) in advance by COB, Tuesday, 31 May. Please note this is the group's final opportunity to raise concerns with this document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEYrDyntrgm-tcIavPMJndU/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEY…>. ❗️❗️❗️ 1. ❗️❗️❗️FINAL EXTENSION: Scoping Team members to review the newly-circulated write up of C.2.2 and propose edits/comments in comment form by COB, Tuesday, 31 May. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CYs9mLHsKcZevmZtFrQBDXbv_nkQ5PKe/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1CYs9mLHsKcZe…>. ❗️❗️❗️ Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika 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) * Confirm next steps 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 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) * Continue review of input received * 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 #31 - 26 May 2022
by Caitlin Tubergen May 26, 2022

May 26, 2022

Dear RDA Scoping Team members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be Thursday, 2 June at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items 1. EXTENDED: Scoping Team members to provide an update to their respective stakeholders group with respect to last week’s discussion about the draft EDPB communication, particularly with respect to scenario 2 and a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) of Scenario 2. Please provide any proposed updates by Wednesday, 1 June. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rCBaQ175p_VrP6DtxLUuuoO9Uv5C2qp_/edit 2. ❗️❗️❗️FINAL EXTENSION: Scoping Team members to review all comments received on the write-up and propose compromise language in comments form (where applicable) in advance by COB, Tuesday, 31 May. Please note this is the group's final opportunity to raise concerns with this document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEYrDyntrgm-tcIavPMJndU/edit. ❗️❗️❗️ 3. ❗️❗️❗️FINAL EXTENSION: Scoping Team members to review the newly-circulated write up of C.2.2 and propose edits/comments in comment form by COB, Tuesday, 31 May. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CYs9mLHsKcZevmZtFrQBDXbv_nkQ5PKe/edit. ❗️❗️❗️ --- Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #31 Thursday 26 May at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) * Registration for ICANN74 has been open, and the availability to sign up for sessions is now available. Please remember to register in advance and for individual sessions. In-person slots will be limited, so please sign up for the sessions in advance. 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…>) * There does not appear to be any new comments added as of our last meeting. * There is still no feedback from the GAC, IPC, BC – this is concerning * This is one of the most important things the group has been asked to consider during its deliberations. * Previous attempts by ICANN org to the Belgian DPA or EDPB have not resulted in actionable guidance that moved policy deliberations forward. * At a certain point in time, it’s important to make these interventions count. Accordingly, it’s important to make these deliberations count and position ICANN for success. * Alan G. – will flesh out * The original date was 23 May, we extended it to 27 May. How much time does the group need? * Proposal: this group will meet in person at ICANN74. Believe this is very important – accordingly, do we dedicate the meeting in the Hague to this communication? * Do not agree with this approach – do not believe this will be sent to the EPDB in the next two weeks. ICANN org still has a lot of work to do in terms of a DPIA, so the timing is not that critical. The Council instructions ask important questions that the group has yet to tackle – what should accuracy look like in the future? * Org spoke with the GAC earlier – for a variety of reasons, the instructions are still that ICANN needs to work through the EC and the Belgian DPA – the plan is to start those conversations quite soon; however, that does not mean there has to be a completed letter or DPIA at this time. Timing – would like to get started on this soon, but there will be parallel preparatory work done along the way. * In terms of making the most constructive use of face-to-face time: one issue the group has struggled with is what does accuracy mean? If we, in this group, cannot come to an agreement of what accuracy is – that would be a very important item for this group to opine on both to ICANN and the DPA. * In terms of making use of face-to-face time – one issue the group has not reached consensus on is what the term accuracy even means. * This is not the right question – we need to know what levels of accuracy are needed with respect to various elements in the RDDS * The two definitions that we had – binary (either inaccurate or accurate) or there are degrees of accuracy * On the last call, the group should support ICANN, but it is ultimately their work. Do not know if it is within the scope of this group to do this work. We have not seen a DPIA or received a request from ICANN. If members need more help giving generalized feedback to ICANN, a few more days should be helpful. In terms of the definition, the write-up shows the agreed upon description of accuracy and the proposals to gather more data to inform the current description. Believe we should focus on this before going to assignments 3 and 4. * * Confirm next steps 1. Write up for assignments #1 & #2 (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEYrDyntrgm-tcIavPMJndU/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13sP-2z7rusEY…>) (30 minutes) * Continue review of input received * When we talk about the description, this refers to existing requirements in the RAA * Manju provided a definition, and it may be helpful to try to coalesce around that * The concept of accuracy revolves around what kind of accuracy are we trying to require noting there are certain uncertainties. As an example of a change we might make in the future is instead of verifying one of two fields, they may be required to verify all field – this is just an example. * If people are not available to attend, there are alternates that can attend in their stead. There is a timeline, here, however – urge representatives to have alternates attend. * Probably best to keep this to describing current RAA definition. * Have to keep in mind the purpose of the collection when defining data protection terms * Do not believe Melina agrees with the addition of “degree of correctness,” but this is how contracted parties understand it – as it has to be measured against a specific standard * When looking at the assignment, everyone seems to agree what is written in the document – everyone agreed that this is what is provided for in the contracts and how it is enforced. The assignment asked for a current definition, and it appears that everyone agrees there is no current definition. * The problem with this definition is that it includes absolute terms – if we say something is free from PCBs, we assume there are no PCBs in it, if something is true, it is not false. However, correctness has flexibility depending on what the standard is. In this case, there seems to be a contradiction. * To go to Alan’s point, if something is complete and accurate, do we really need to verify it? That may be the cause of confusion here. One way to reconcile this – look to the identity space. There are three levels of identify assurance levels, you have been identity-proofed, but to what degree have you been identity-proofed? Using the terms true, complete, and free of error can scale. If GAC reps were here, would be asking them the question about identity verification since those definitions support a degree or range. * What is a specified standard? BC reps are concerned with actual registrant accuracy – in other words, is the data accurate for that particular registrant? There are many instances of identity theft, and this is a big problem. * This is not for assignments 1 and 2 – that is for later assignments. There is a difference b/w what members want accuracy to look like vs. what it does look like. In reading the definition, read the first and second part together – accuracy is generally […], but registration data accuracy is being defined […]. * Would it be possible to engage with the BC to see if the definition provides a current vs. future state – is this something the BC could live with – but under the specified standard, the BC finds it unacceptable for the following reason. The specified standard gives the group the flexibility to scale this to the future. What this specified standard is will become clearer through best practices through – and this allows it to grow and evolve over time. * Where does the second sentence originate from? * This text originally came from the RySG and NCSG added some language * There is a distinction between the absolute text – the group talks about validation and verification are not specifically defined * Is it possible to note how the group understands what these terms to mean – validation and verification rather than cite a specific source * Propose not to agonize over the definitions – just cite what is in the RAA * Confirm next steps * Due to lack of homework, the same assignments will be extended (for the final time) until next week 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 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1CYs9mLHsKcZe…>) (15 minutes) * Review input received * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 2 June at 14.00 UTC)

1 0