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

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

Nov. 22, 2021

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

1 0

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

Nov. 22, 2021

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

1 0

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

Nov. 19, 2021

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

1 0

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

Nov. 19, 2021

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

8 7

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

Nov. 18, 2021

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

1 0

Instructions
by Sarah Wyld Nov. 18, 2021

Nov. 18, 2021

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

1 0

Instructions
by Sarah Wyld Nov. 18, 2021

Nov. 18, 2021

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

1 0

Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Purposes vs Requirements
by Steve Crocker Nov. 18, 2021

Nov. 18, 2021

Sarah, et al, With respect to focusing on just the definition of accuracy, is our focus solely on the accuracy of email and phone numbers, or do we anticipate the PDP will be setting rules for the accuracy of the myriad of other data elements? Further, are we providing a single level of accuracy or choices for different levels of accuracy? If our work is aimed at setting a single standard for accuracy, which I assume will be operational validation, and it's intended to apply only to email and phone numbers, then the path forward is easy. We can converge on the wording that defines operational validation, and the PDP will not have any work to do regarding setting the requirements. The implication, of course, is the PDP will say nothing about the accuracy of the other data elements, and the only purposes that can be supported will have to depend solely on operational validation of email and/or phone numbers. Thanks, Steve On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:19 AM Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > > > It seems to me that listing the agreed-upon purposes that registration > data is supposed to serve may not be part of our instructions, or if we do > need to do so it would be in service of answering Instruction #3: > > > > “3. Effectiveness: The Scoping Team will, on the basis of its assessment > under 1. and data resulting from 2., undertake an analysis of the accuracy > levels measured to assess whether the contractual data accuracy obligations > are effective at ensuring that Registered Name Holders provide “accurate > and reliable” contact information.” > > > > I could see that we can’t assess if obligations are effective without > having an understanding of what effective means, which could relate to the > purpose for collecting registration data. > > > > That said, I don’t think these purposes are related to the work we need to > do for Instructions #1 and #2, which have us assessing how accuracy is > monitored, considering if there is a definition of accuracy (I think there > is), and providing suggestions for how to measure accuracy. > > > > I think we’ll get through this work the most efficiently if we stick to > the plan and follow the schedule we’ve already agreed on, which means > starting with instructions 1 and 2. > > > > Looking forward to discussing! > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- > > *Sarah Wyld*, CIPP/E > > > > Policy & Privacy Manager > > Pronouns: she/they > > > > swyld(a)tucows.com > > +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 > > > > > > *From: *Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > *Sent: *November 17, 2021 7:59 PM > *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> > *Cc: *gnso-accuracy-st(a)icann.org > *Subject: *[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Purposes vs Requirements > > > > Folks, > > > > Attached is a short note on purposes, requirements, etc. > > > > In my view, the work for this scoping group is to: > > - List the agreed upon purposes that registration data is supposed to > serve. This is presumably just a matter of copying what's been previously > decided, but I've heard some contradictory views, one of which is there are > no acceptable third party uses of registration data. > - Agree on definitions for the various levels of accuracy validation > that might be applied to individual data elements. > > It will then be up to the PDP WG to set the specific accuracy requirements > for individual data elements. > > > > The natural questions along the way are: > > - whether the requirements are sufficient to meet the intended > purposes, > - whether the actual practices achieve the requirements, and > - whether discrepancies between requirements and practice are actually > detected, and, if so, what remedial actions take place. > > See you all on the call tomorrow. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve > > > > >

1 0

**Starting in 15 minutes | Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Nov. 18, 2021

Nov. 18, 2021

**Starting in 15 minutes Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZENk9yN0RqOUUzaGx2eGV0QT09 Passcode: Vc#0B7$pu8 For Audio only: Or One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94504686990#,,,,*4631547480# or +13126266799,,94504686990#,,,,*4631547480# Webinar ID: 945 0468 6990 Passcode: 4631547480 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/akRu7JTFd [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/akRu7JTFd__;!!PtGJab4!pY…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> Members, participants, alternates and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call * Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/3AC7Cg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/5ba4vsun [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/5ba4vsun__;!!PtGJab4!qI5d9D-…> ONLY for Members and Alternates * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Panelists and Attendees, or Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – In order to keep track of alternate replacements, use the google form [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/GZqMAi4kKDaVP5o66__;!!PtGJab4!…> to communicate who the alternate is replacing and for which period. This information will be publicly posted so that the Team is aware at any time who is active. Alternate Assignment –wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/-wC7Cg>. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #6 on Thursday 18 November at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Nov. 18, 2021

Nov. 18, 2021

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda of the next Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 18 November at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #6 Thursday 18 November at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 1. Follow up questions to ICANN org regarding enforcement and Accuracy Reporting System (45 minutes) * Input received from scoping team to date: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1arlKdQkbRkE1LuurmDdd-PZP184_AdFm/edit * Scoping team input * Confirm deadline for submission of questions 1. Homework reminder: * Future explanation / aspirational definition of accuracy see template - https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit) * Deadline: 2 December 2021 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 25 November at 14.00 UTC)

3 3