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

Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting
by ICANN Policy Calendar Oct. 21, 2021

Oct. 21, 2021

Meeting: Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting Date/time: Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 13:00 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, 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/Kg2HCg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/u4nvazuh ONLY for Members and Participants * 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. 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

**REMINDER** Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 13:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 20, 2021

Oct. 20, 2021

Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZENk9yN0RqOUUzaGx2eGV0QT09 [icann.zoom.us]<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 [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, 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/Kg2HCg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/u4nvazuh [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/u4nvazuh__;!!PtGJab4!q_jGr3P…> ONLY for Members and Participants * 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. 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

Request
by Michael Palage Oct. 19, 2021

Oct. 19, 2021

Hello All, I would like to thank our RrSG colleagues for their contribution on a proposed definition of accuracy, and Steve’s contribution that has help tee up some material for our Thursday call. As I have previously stated I would really value all Working Group members contributing their thoughts via the mailing list or mark-ups on the Google Docs during the week to help tee up discussion points in advance of our weekly calls. I believe this approach is the best way to make most efficient use of our time. Over the past month I have discussed/reviewed a number of Stakeholder groups statements submitted to Brussels in connection with NIS 2.0. LET ME VERY CLEAR I AM NOT interjecting a substantive discussion of NIS 2.0. However, I have found these various communications informative to better understand how ICANN’s various stakeholder groups have articulated their version of ICANN’s existing contractual obligations with contracting parties. Therefore, I would respectfully request that these stakeholder groups share these communications via the list to allow us to better understand the respective viewpoints of these groups. Keep up the constructive dialog and please contribute. Best regards, Michael

1 0

**REMINDER TO REGISTER** ICANN72 GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized / Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Oct. 19, 2021

Oct. 19, 2021

Dear all, ICANN72 is right around the corner! This email provides some information to help you prepare and organize. Please note: You will need to register for ICANN72 to access the meeting schedule. Mandatory Registration for ICANN72 * Sign into your ICANN Account, or create an account here [account.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/account.icann.org/login__;!!PtGJab4!p_nH…>. * Register for ICANN72 by selecting Meeting Registration and click on the ICANN72 Registration link. Click here [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> for detailed instructions. Access the ICANN72 Schedule * ICANN72 schedule: https://72.schedule.icann.org/ [72.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/72.schedule.icann.org/__;!!PtGJab4!p_nHN…> For security purposes, participation links will be posted 24-hours prior to the session start times. * ICANN72 GNSO Sessions have been grouped on the ICANN72 GNSO wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/CAFmCg>. Create your own schedule: * The ICANN Meeting website allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. For detailed instructions on how to create your personalized ICANN72 schedule and import your schedule to your calendar, click here [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…>. Review the Participation Tools and update Zoom * All sessions will use Zoom rooms. Access details are available 24hrs prior on the ICANN72 Meeting Schedule [72.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/72.schedule.icann.org/__;!!PtGJab4!p_nHN…>. * Visit the Participation Tools page [72.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/72.schedule.icann.org/participation-tool…> for links to download the latest version of Zoom for access to the ICANN72 sessions. * Please see the ICANN Meeting Virtual Participation How-To Guide [72.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/72.schedule.icann.org/attend*:*:text=vir…> for more information on how to get the most out of the virtual meeting tools. Links to Bookmark ICANN72 Meeting Schedule [72.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/72.schedule.icann.org/__;!!PtGJab4!p_nHN…> GNSO ICANN72 Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/CAFmCg> GNSO Session agendas<https://community.icann.org/x/iIH8CQ> For all GNSO meeting-related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- 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

Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] RrSG-Proposed Definition of Accuracy
by Steve Crocker Oct. 19, 2021

Oct. 19, 2021

Sarah, Doesn't section f of the Whois Accuracy Specification require *identity validation*, not just *operational (operable) validation*? If the RrSG is proposing *operational validation*, this seems to me a weakening of the current validation requirement and would not be consistent with section f. On the other hand, if the RrSG is proposing validation consistent with section f, the terminology *identity validation* would be consistent. Here's the text of section f: f. Verify: 1. the email address of the Registered Name Holder (and, if different, the Account Holder) by sending an email requiring an affirmative response through a tool-based authentication method such as providing a unique code that must be returned in a manner designated by the Registrar, or 2. the telephone number of the Registered Name Holder (and, if different, the Account Holder) by either (A) calling or sending an SMS to the Registered Name Holder's telephone number providing a unique code that must be returned in a manner designated by the Registrar, or (B) calling the Registered Name Holder's telephone number and requiring the Registered Name Holder to provide a unique code that was sent to the Registered Name Holder via web, email or postal mail. In either case, if Registrar does not receive an affirmative response from the Registered Name Holder, Registrar shall either verify the applicable contact information manually or suspend the registration, until such time as Registrar has verified the applicable contact information. If Registrar does not receive an affirmative response from the Account Holder, Registrar shall verify the applicable contact information manually, but is not required to suspend any registration. In SAC 058, the following definitions are provided: *Operational Validation* refers to the assessment of data for their intended use in their routine functions. Examples of operational validation include 1) checking that an email address or phone number can receive email or phone calls; 2) checking that a postal address can receive postal mail; 3) checking that the data entered are self-consistent, i.e. that all data are logically consistent with all other data. It is expected that many operational validation checks would be automated and some could be executed inline with a registration process. *Identity validation* refers to the assessment that the data corresponds to the real world identity of the entity. It involves checking that a data item correctly represents the real world identity for the registrant. In general, identity validation checks are expected to require some manual intervention. Thanks, Steve On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:50 AM Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > The RrSG members of the Accuracy Scoping team propose the following > definition of “accuracy” for domain name registration data, as per our > homework assignment: > > *"Accuracy shall be strictly defined as syntactical accuracy of the > registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder as well > as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email > address."* > > To be determined to be *syntactically accurate*, the contact must satisfy > all requirements for validity (see Whois Accuracy Program Specification > <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#who…> > Sections 1b-d). E.g. for email addresses, all characters must be > permissible, the “@” symbol is required, there must be characters before > the “@” symbol (the “local” component), there must be a valid top-level > domain at the end, and there must be a valid domain after the “@” symbol, > but before a “.” and the valid top-level domain. > > To be determined to be *operably accurate*, the contact must be operable > as defined in the Whois Accuracy Program Specification > <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#who…> > Section f; in other words, the email must be deliverable, the telephone > number has to connect without an error message such as that the number is > invalid or disconnected, and the postal address must be mailable. > > The RAA currently requires validation of syntactical accuracy and > verification of operational accuracy for either email or phone. > > Thank you, > > > > -- > > *Sarah Wyld*, CIPP/E > > > > Policy & Privacy Manager > > Pronouns: she/they > > > > swyld(a)tucows.com > > +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list > GNSO-Accuracy-ST(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your > personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance > with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and > the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can > visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or > disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

3 6

RrSG-Proposed Definition of Accuracy
by Sarah Wyld Oct. 19, 2021

Oct. 19, 2021

Hello all, The RrSG members of the Accuracy Scoping team propose the following definition of “accuracy” for domain name registration data, as per our homework assignment: "Accuracy shall be strictly defined as syntactical accuracy of the registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder as well as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email address." To be determined to be syntactically accurate, the contact must satisfy all requirements for validity (see Whois Accuracy Program Specification Sections 1b-d). E.g. for email addresses, all characters must be permissible, the “@” symbol is required, there must be characters before the “@” symbol (the “local” component), there must be a valid top-level domain at the end, and there must be a valid domain after the “@” symbol, but before a “.” and the valid top-level domain. To be determined to be operably accurate, the contact must be operable as defined in the Whois Accuracy Program Specification Section f; in other words, the email must be deliverable, the telephone number has to connect without an error message such as that the number is invalid or disconnected, and the postal address must be mailable. The RAA currently requires validation of syntactical accuracy and verification of operational accuracy for either email or phone. Thank you, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld(a)tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

1 0

RrSG-Proposed Definition of Accuracy
by Sarah Wyld Oct. 19, 2021

Oct. 19, 2021

Hello all, The RrSG members of the Accuracy Scoping team propose the following definition of “accuracy” for domain name registration data, as per our homework assignment: "Accuracy shall be strictly defined as syntactical accuracy of the registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder as well as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email address." To be determined to be syntactically accurate, the contact must satisfy all requirements for validity (see Whois Accuracy Program Specification Sections 1b-d). E.g. for email addresses, all characters must be permissible, the “@” symbol is required, there must be characters before the “@” symbol (the “local” component), there must be a valid top-level domain at the end, and there must be a valid domain after the “@” symbol, but before a “.” and the valid top-level domain. To be determined to be operably accurate, the contact must be operable as defined in the Whois Accuracy Program Specification Section f; in other words, the email must be deliverable, the telephone number has to connect without an error message such as that the number is invalid or disconnected, and the postal address must be mailable. The RAA currently requires validation of syntactical accuracy and verification of operational accuracy for either email or phone. Thank you, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld(a)tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

1 0

Proposed Agenda - Accuracy Scoping Team meeting on 18 October 2021
by Marika Konings Oct. 18, 2021

Oct. 18, 2021

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 21 October at 13.00 UTC. As a reminder, please review the background briefings and provide your input on the remaining questions for discussion by COB today (18 October): * Background briefing assignment #2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LvqM6KlNGyTVQxe_l5v03-UWlsxo4AAl/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1LvqM6KlNGyTV…> * Background briefing assignment #3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S-bBG75O6VsGg4mhGgIsKKoUK7lDMO-w/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1S-bBG75O6VsG…> * Background briefing assignment #4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gvVN4IQjrkinQom0Xj_QGjTBTO-XkMri/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1gvVN4IQjrkin…> Also, please don’t forget to add your proposed follow up questions for ICANN org to the following document: * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1arlKdQkbRkE1LuurmDdd-PZP184_AdFm/edit Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #3 Thursday 21 October at 13.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (10 minutes) * Miscellaneous administrative issues * ICANN72 session – Tuesday Tuesday 26 October (19.30 – 21.00 UTC). Proposed agenda: * Welcome & Introduction * High level overview of workplan * Open microphone * Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 4 November at 13.00 UTC) 1. Background briefing assignment #2 – see https://docs.google.c‌om/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit> * Review assignment #2 * Consider questions and team input received: * What information, if any, is missing to support the team’s deliberations on whether ARS needs a revamp or whether there are other ways in which accuracy levels can/should be measured? * What approach should the team take to develop these recommendations? * How much time and resources are expected to be needed to either revamp ARS or implement other ways in which accuracy levels can/should be measured? * Confirm next steps 1. Background briefing assignment #3 – see https://docs.google.com/document/‌d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit> * Review assignment #3 * Consider questions and team input received: * What is necessary to undertake such an analysis? * What is the definition of “effective”? * How are “accurate and reliable” to be interpreted (see also assignment #1 re. working definitions)? * What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? * Confirm next steps 1. Background briefing assignment #4 - see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit * Review assignment #4 * Consider questions and team input received: * When & how are estimates of benefits and costs expected to be developed? * In addition to outcome of assignment #1-3 and cost/benefit analysis, is there anything further that is needed for the scoping team to deliberate on whether any changes are needed to improve accuracy levels? * Based on response to previous question, what are the options the team can consider for how and by whom these changes would need to be developed? * What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (ICANN72 session on Tuesday 26 October at 19.30 UTC)

1 0

Dedicated google folder created for Accuracy Scoping Team
by Marika Konings Oct. 13, 2021

Oct. 13, 2021

Dear All, To facilitate collaboration and to make it easier for the team to find documents that are under review, the staff support team has created a dedicated accuracy scoping team google folder (see https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0ACUIDPLWa0XGUk9PVA) You should be receiving a notice shortly that you have been added to this folder. Do note that as it was not possible to move the original documents to this new folder, we have uploaded them which means that the link has changed. For your convenience, you will find the updated links below – please use these from now onwards for any further input you want to add. We will also update these links on the applicable wiki pages. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Documents in the Accuracy ST Google Folder * Index of relevant resources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oxVNpCU5YjkHDnxsbA7NZPs6cCVc6vU_/edit * ICANN org questions input form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1arlKdQkbRkE1LuurmDdd-PZP184_AdFm/edit * Background briefing assignment #1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k9fvA4gnb13bNbB8O4o72mXMZ8mQnJGC/edit * Background briefing assignment #2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LvqM6KlNGyTVQxe_l5v03-UWlsxo4AAl/edit * Background briefing assignment #3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S-bBG75O6VsGg4mhGgIsKKoUK7lDMO-w/edit * Background briefing assignment #4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gvVN4IQjrkinQom0Xj_QGjTBTO-XkMri/edit

1 0

Notes and action items - RDA Scoping Team Meeting #02 - 12 Oct 2021
by Caitlin Tubergen Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

Dear RDA Scoping Team Members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. The next RDA Scoping Team meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 19 October at 13:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=176622913> 1. Following today’s discussion, Michael to provide further information over the list regarding the use of both the general email address and alternates. 2. ICANN Support Staff to create a google doc where team members may provide draft questions to ICANN Compliance and ICANN Legal. Please find the link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lRiuyCMg2lxkMDJEuAroUht_pgv2Nw9e/edit. 3. ICANN Support Staff to include a list of EPDP Phase 1 purposes for processing registration data in the index. 4. RDA Scoping Team members to review input provided in Assignments #1 - #4 and provide additional input by COB Wednesday, 20 October. 5. NOTE: ICANN72 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team session<https://72.schedule.icann.org/meetings/LfJ22fzQsPhhFMPDD#/?limit=10&sortByF…> will be on Tuesday, 26 October at 12:30 PDT/19:30 UTC. Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #2 Tuesday 12 October at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (10 minutes) * Results of doodle poll & schedule of meetings going forward * As of now, Thursdays at 13:00 UTC is the preferred time. * For the individuals who noted that this time would not work, they have confirmed that they can now make this time slot work. * Miscellaneous administrative issues * Shortly before the meeting, Michael sent a message to the group re: use of alternates and a general email address. * Proposal to use alternates – if the group goes forward with this path, please consider appointing an alternate from South America * Secondly, the email includes more details about the proposed email list for third parties to submit ideas to. ICANN org colleagues will monitor the email list. * If there are no objections to these two items, propose to move forward. Feedback: * With respect to the general email address, no objection; however, concerned that having an open-ended email will not generate useful input. Unsure what the actual value of this would be. There may be better ways to get more productive feedback from the community. There is generally a public comment period on a preliminary issues report – while this is not a preliminary issues report, perhaps a public comment period could be helpful here. * Once the team has something on paper, we could seek input on that * Need to understand how to consider and incorporate any input received before establishing the email box * How well is the example working (ICANN ODP)? * The SSAD ODP email requires users to click a link before sending an email. There is a spam filter on the message and admins can review messages for inadvertent spam. The list will be publicly archived so that all can see what is received. This could be considered similar to soliciting input from SOs ACs at early stages * This seems like a low cost and low risk thing to do – if it proves to be horrible, the group can dismiss the email address. There is no harm in trying this. * This is a good way to solicit input. Perhaps to limit spam, there could be a dedicated platform instead of email. * With respect to alternates, will work be assigned to alternates? This could be a way to abuse the size limits of the scoping team. There is value to having a finite number of members to this scoping effort. * These two items will be put on hold, and Michael will respond with further information over the list. 1. Background briefing assignment #1 - see https://docs.googl‌e.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj8…> * Review assignment #1 * Feedback from registrars – the EPDP did change some of the documents; for example, some of the data elements will no longer be collected. It will be helpful for this team to keep this in mind. * ICANN org prepared a document about the impact of EPDP. * Need to review the purpose of the accuracy program – groups see this differently * Consider questions and team input received: · What information is missing from the list of existing accuracy obligations? * There is no point in asking for information if there is no level of confidence that the data is accurate. * The Board noted that it will further consider pending RDS-RT recommendations following consideration of Phase 2. * This needs to be a fact-gathering exercise – for example, what are processes that ICANN has started in the past but has not concluded? * In EPDP Phase 1, the Team identified seven purposes for the processing of gTLD registration data. These should be included in the information index. * Any relevant information that needs to be pulled out for a specific conversation can be pulled out. RDA Support Staff will pull out the purposes. · What follow up questions are there in relation to the information that has been provided on the measures used by ICANN Compliance to monitor, measure, enforce and report on the accuracy obligations? * Should the team come up with a list of questions to ICANN org/compliance about how and if their job is difficult? * Inviting compliance to come speak with the team would be helpful – the first charge of the scoping team is very relevant to ICANN compliance’s role vis-à-vis accuracy. * This is not only a good idea; it is a necessary idea. The liaison does not act as an advocate; they are a conduit. ICANN is a major player in the concept of accuracy. Things have changed radically over the past few years. * Would recommend reviewing the information already provided and noting what is missing still needs to be asked. ICANN Support Staff to create a google doc for compliance questions. In the document, include a link to the blog of already-answered questions · In relation to the materials provided concerning definitions, are there references sources missing? · What working definition should be used and why? * Section 3.7.7 references the term “commercially reasonable” in reference to compliance. This is a term of art and requires further discussion. * Section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws should be considered and included in the list of resources – law enforcement, consumer protection, etc. * Recommend to include the document prepared by Steve Crocker providing comparison of SAC058 to ERI (aka Project Jake), NIST and eIDAS standards sent to mailing list on 5-Oct-2021. There is a column that applies specifically to validation. * Do not understand the purpose of looking at this chart at this point in the call. * Team is reviewing the document and looking at input on definitions. * The purpose of this chart – suggest that this is a way of representing what the validation requirements are and one can argue if these are the right settings or not. Relevant point – is this a useful method for capturing what the requirements are or for having competing versions of what the requirements are. * This maps the definition of what accuracy is from an engineering perspective rather than a legal perspective. * This document is a valid interpretation of the SSAC document. * Trying to get the team to a definition via an operational way is helpful. However, the team is supposed to be defining rather than rating. * As far as registrars are concerned, the definition of accuracy is built into the RAA. The definition, therefore, is very straightforward. * From a registrar standpoint, the accuracy definition comes from the 2013 RAA and it outlines what the definition of accuracy is – particularly the Whois Accuracy Program Specification. * What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? * Confirm next steps 1. Background briefing assignment #2 – see https://docs.google.c‌om/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkf…> * Review assignment #2 * Steve Crocker has already shown how the SSAC document could be applied * Draft Report for study of WHOIS Accuracy – there was no further step on finalizing the report. The draft report was used to help inform the AOC review as well as WHOIS policy development work, but there was no final version that was produced. * Consider questions and team input received: · What information, if any, is missing to support the team’s deliberations on recommendations for how accuracy levels can be determined and measured? * In light of GDPR, the WHOIS system has changed. The ARS system had to stop working; how it was working was no longer valid. * Homework – next week, when we reengage on assignment #2 – registrars are noting that ARS is no longer fit for purpose. Question for the rest of the group – do you agree with this statement? Is there a way to move forward with the ARS that is GDPR compliant? * Fundamental concern – this doesn’t work and is no longer appropriate – not sure that is the job of the scoping team. Rather than making evaluations, the team should be defining accuracy. * A tool the team used to have is the ARS – is that an arrow still in the Team’s quiver? Perhaps the team needs to do some fact finding on this to determine if this is a valid arrow. Important to engage in fact finding. * Agree that ARS is no longer functional; would be helpful to ask ICANN legal about the viability of the ARS system. * ICANN org did provide additional information regarding the current suspension of the ARS. The Team will have a document in which the team may ask questions of ICANN compliance – perhaps questions can also be catalogued here for ICANN legal * The ARS as implemented is dead. ICANN made no attempts to implement minor or major changes to make this work – such as using escrowed data. · What approach should the team take to develop these recommendations? · What information, if any, is missing to support the team’s deliberations on whether ARS needs a revamp or whether there are other ways in which accuracy levels can/should be measured? · What approach should the team take to develop these recommendations? · How much time and resources are expected to be needed to either revamp ARS or implement other ways in which accuracy levels can/should be measured? * Confirm next steps 1. Background briefing assignment #3 – see https://docs.google.com/document/‌d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn…> * Review assignment #3 * Consider questions and team input received: · What is necessary to undertake such an analysis? · What is the definition of “effective”? · How are “accurate and reliable” to be interpreted (see also assignment #1 re. working definitions)? * What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? * Confirm next steps 1. Background briefing assignment #4 - see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXy…> * Review assignment #4 * Consider questions and team input received: · When & how are estimates of benefits and costs expected to be developed? · In addition to outcome of assignment #1-3 and cost/benefit analysis, is there anything further that is needed for the scoping team to deliberate on whether any changes are needed to improve accuracy levels? · Based on response to previous question, what are the options the team can consider for how and by whom these changes would need to be developed? * What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (TBC based on responses to doodle poll -https://doodle.com/poll/2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link [doodle.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doodle.com/poll/2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8?utm_sou…>)

1 0