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

UDRP Data Points wrt Accuracy
by Michael Palage Feb. 9, 2022

Feb. 9, 2022

Hello All, So I reached out to Brian Beckham from WIPO in response to this thread yesterday. Listed below is his email response. I also spoke with Brian today about how we might go about involving other UDRP providers in this outreach. If we complete our assignments tomorrow we can add this to the agenda. Best regards, Michael <EMAIL RESPONSE FROM BRIAN BECKHAM (WIPO)> Thanks Michael, Do let me know if/how we can assist. An initial observation, which you and the WG will already know, is that while perhaps anecdotally useful, this will yield incomplete data and obviously the search terms should be creatively widened (yet will inevitably not be fully comprehensive given that if a panel chooses to record such fact in the decision, it could do so in different ways (or even in different places: e.g., in the procedural history vs the bad faith analysis) and using different terms). If only to state the obvious, information can be “accurate” in the sense that it provides an entry into the required data fields, but still inaccurate in the sense of authenticity vis-à-vis an actual registrant. These types of scenarios in particular cause unnecessary time (giving room for cyberflight, or prolonged illegitimate activity) and expense in the UDRP cases, and even potential due process issues (even if they would be occasioned by registrants). While this goes beyond UDRP cases (as will your efforts), I wonder if your WG has considered the utility of cross-field challenge/matching (which may not be the technical term) such as is employed by postal and shipping companies around the world (i.e., you cannot provide a 4-digit zip code in Switzerland but list a US or UK address). Mindful that these conversations and policies need to look at scale and potential ripple effects/unintended consequences, I would also caution, as Roger seems to allude to below, that there may indeed be broader policy considerations than a mere one-to-one correlation between “extent” and “impact” can reasonably be expected to reveal. While a slightly different topic (P/P), the following may be of interest: https://circleid.com/posts/20201104-icann-meeting-concluded-with-no-action-… Thanks, and again, do let me know if we can assist further. Brian

1 0

**REMINDER** Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Feb. 9, 2022

Feb. 9, 2022

Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 10 February 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/_YD3Cg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/mv9h95yv [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/mv9h95yv__;!!PtGJab4!oBJfxsm…> ONLY for Members and Alternates * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – In order to keep track of alternate replacements, use the google form <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/GZqMAi4kKDaVP5o66__;!!PtGJab4!…> to communicate who the alternate is replacing and for which period. This information will be publicly posted so that the Team is aware at any time who is active. Alternate Assignment –wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/-wC7Cg>. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Message from the Chair
by Michael Palage Feb. 9, 2022

Feb. 9, 2022

Hello All, I would like to remind all the stakeholder groups to please complete their assignments by this Thursday’s call. As Chair I have tried to be sensitive to the Zoom burnout that is impacting most of the ICANN community. However, we are falling behind and that is a concern, especially after reading Kevin Murphy’s recent article <https://domainincite.com/27434-icann-hasnt-implemented-a-policy-since-2016> on the lack of policy implementation within ICANN over the past 6 years. In fact, I produced the following image below which I mocked up and now have as my desktop background. While I am not opposed to taking time to get to where we need to be, I am concerned that some groups have not been pulling their full weight. As noted above, I know that the two plus years with no face to face meetings is taking its toll, but we need to plow forward with our work. If we continue to fall behind in our work, I think we need to access whether we make the recommendation to Council to suspend/terminate this working group until a later time. This is not my preference as I personally believe that there is a problem that needs to be addressed based on my own professional and personal experience. I also believe that the numerous references to “accuracy” in the recent EU’s DNS Abuse Report is further evidence that there is work to be done in this area. I appreciate the time restrains that this Working Group and the broader ICANN multi-stakeholder model (MSM) places on everyone’s professional and personal lives. I am especially sensitive to those volunteers that are not employees of an ICANN contracting party. For these volunteers, the responsibilities of this Working Group go well above and beyond your other professional responsibilities. My concern, however, is that there has been a steady and continuing decline in the number of volunteers within the ICANN community willing to do the heavy MSM lifting. Unfortunately the likely outcome of this trajectory is an ICANN that looks more like a trade association, or worse a cartel. This is not a potential outcome that I find acceptable based upon the last twenty three years of trying to make this ICANN MSM experiment work. Looking forward to a productive call on Thursday. Best regards, Michael

2 1

UDRP review
by Roger D Carney Feb. 8, 2022

Feb. 8, 2022

Good Afternoon, Several times during our deliberations, the issue of registration data accuracy and UDRPs has been raised, with Becky even suggesting an X/Y summary in chat last week. Although some anecdotes were provided, the CPH would like to propose a review of UDRP decisions to determine the extent of registration data inaccuracies in UDRPs, as well as the impact of those inaccuracies on UDRP proceedings. We believe that obtaining comprehensive data regarding the issue should help guide our deliberations. Two UDRP providers (WIPO and the Forum) have easily accessible (and searchable) Decisions. WIPO has almost 49,000 Decisions (of which 764 include the word “inaccurate”), and the Forum has almost 32,000 Decisions (of which 188 include the work “inaccurate”). The other providers do not have easily accessible online databases (or limited search capabilities). The CPH proposes the Scoping Team create a small team to determine how to gather and then review the data. There are several methods to do so, and we think this is something that is well suited to a small team. Thanks Roger

3 2

Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team Meeting #17 on Thursday 10 February at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Feb. 8, 2022

Feb. 8, 2022

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 10 February at 14.00 UTC. As a reminder: * Still Outstanding: By Wednesday, 9 February, Scoping Team members who have not yet completed the assignment to consider what is needed and from whom to obtain information identified as necessary to measure whether current goals are met. Additionally, scoping team members to begin identifying specific ways in which measurement can be undertaken. (see page 25 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit?p… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUs…>. *For groups that referenced ARS, please consider ICANN org’s recent memo in your response: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-January/000236.html.* Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #17 Thursday 10 February at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 1. Measurement of accuracy (60 minutes) * Review of existing data sources - role in existing current situation & identifying possible gaps (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-February/000253.html) * Review input received on google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit>, see page 25 - How and by whom can it be measured whether current goal(s) of existing accuracy requirements are met? * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 17 February at 14.00 UTC)

1 0

RDA_ST // 31 Jan 2022 Project Package
by Berry Cobb Feb. 7, 2022

Feb. 7, 2022

Dear Scoping Team, Please find a link below to project package for the RDA_ST (31 Jan 2022). This package is a snap-shot at the close of each month and developed by the leadership team to report on the working group’s activities and status of the project. It is also distributed to the GNSO Council to keep them informed as managers of the project. The package is deposited on the wiki so that we can track access statistics. Link: https://community.icann.org/x/PQ2HCg 1. Page 01 – Summary dashboard 2. Page 02 – Project Sitrep – an extract from the Council’s Project List 3. Page 03 – Group roster 4. Page 04,05 – Work and activity metrics 5. Page 06 – Project Plan, Gantt chart 6. Page 07 – Work plan & Action items for the period Note that on page 2, the assignments of #1 & #2 have flipped to yellow and red respectively in line with the Chair’s verbal acknowledgement that we are behind schedule. As of now, this does not impact the overall Status and Health of the project. Please let us know if you have questions. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Policy Development - Portfolio Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) berry.cobb(a)icann.org

1 0

Notes and action items - RDA Scoping Team Meeting #16 - 3 Feb 2022
by Caitlin Tubergen Feb. 3, 2022

Feb. 3, 2022

Dear RDA Scoping Team Members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be Thursday, 10 February, at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items: 1. Still Outstanding: By Wednesday, 9 February, Scoping Team members who have not yet completed the assignment to consider what is needed and from whom to obtain information identified as necessary to measure whether current goals are met. Additionally, scoping team members to begin identifying specific ways in which measurement can be undertaken. (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit?p… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUs…>. *For groups that referenced ARS, please consider ICANN org’s recent memo in your response: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2022-January/000236.html.* Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #16 Thursday 3 February at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) * There are some groups that have yet to complete the assignments. Thus far, only Rrs and Rys have completed the assignment in advance of today’s meeting. Please complete the assignment as soon as possible if you have not. 1. Measurement of accuracy (60 minutes) * Review of existing data sources - role in assessing current situation & identifying possible gaps * A lot of what was provided in the gap analysis were broad statements or requests to incorporate different parts of the RAA. In short, some input was fact-based, and that input was the core of what problems exist related to accuracy. Would it be possible for the staff support team to group the fact-based input into a document for the group to review? * The only objective data is some of the reports from the UDRP panelists who have cited inaccurate data. * Support Staff picked out references from the gap analysis and identified five different pieces, all of which were referenced in the index of resources, the most recent being the InterIsle report. A question from staff – what would the group like to do next with this information? * It is important to understand the current landscape. If no group has provided factual information, it’s unclear what the group is doing or how it can productively move forward. * Confused that CPs are asking for other constituencies to provide data on inaccuracy, but how can these groups go about doing so when very little data, if any, is public. The most recent report seems to be the NORC study. How are these groups realistically expected to provide the requested factual data? * The homework assignment is about having this conversation: everyone identified what they believed the current accuracy requirements are, and how accuracy can be measured with the current requirements. Rrs and Rys have provided additional ideas. Other groups have suggested that ARS should be restarted, but it would be helpful if the groups that suggested this would look at this suggestion in the context of the memo ICANN org recently provided. If it should be done, what hurdles would need to be overcome? Then the next step would be to identify gaps. Many members mention problems, but the problems need to be documented and then suggestions of how to move forward need to be suggested – for example, is further policy work necessary? Is there an approach to get data to show that current accuracy requirements are being met or not being met. * Not aware of post-2018 data, but some are asserting that there is a problem. Is there, for example, a tracking of how many times you have unsuccessfully contacted someone and could not because of inaccurate data. The problem needs to be quantified rather than a general feeling that Whois data is inaccurate. * There have been a number of instances in UDRP decisions where the panelist has cited inaccurate data. If we show data points, is that enough? There is data that shows that there were issues prior to GDPR. That data became inaccessible, and prior to GDPR, ICANN compliance reported inaccuracy being the number one source of complaints. It is a heavy lift to discover inaccurate data. * This is a classic chicken/egg scenario. INTA or IPC members may provide reports of inaccuracy, but other members have expressed that anecdotal evidence is unwelcome in this group. Additionally, some parties do not want to disclose their identities publicly due to exposure. This is a very finite, targeted problem that we have. * This is an accuracy scoping team, but getting access to data is very hard. There is an inextricable link b/w access and accuracy. There is a three-part process. If someone has a problem and needs to make contact with someone, can they get access to information. Yes or no? If yes, and they receive no response, is it b/c someone chooses not to respond or b/c the data is inaccurate? What percentage of the challenges to reach someone are b/c you cannot get any access to info? What percentage of non-response is because of no response vs. inaccurate data? Some partitioning of this data would be helpful. * What homework have certain groups not completed? * Cannot demonstrate that there are certain problems because the data is no longer publicly available – not sure how this can be proven. In terms of the reasons why someone may not respond – there is an InterIsle study that demonstrates that in a significant number of cases, there is contact information problems. Asking these groups to verify that there is a problem sounds like a Catch-22. * Sympathize with other members – the task of a scoping team is to identify a problem, and if there is a problem, a PDP can be launched to address the issue. It’s impossible to create a solution to a problem that may or may not exist based on outdated data. Without data that corroborates that there is a problem, we cannot move forward. * May be helpful to provide examples without identifying companies. Can you provide dates that you requested the info, did the CP respond, was there a bounce back, etc. This would help understand the scope of the problem on the requester side. This is private personal data, and CPs are complying with the Temp Spec and the law. * The disconnect here is that fraudulent data is being labelled as accurate. Facts of many UDRP cases center around fraud, phishing, etc. The system currently allows fraudulent registration of inaccurate data. The system encourages the submission of fraudulent data. * Cannot readily assume that fraudulent information that is technically accurate has gone away post-GDPR. Whois is no longer public – there is no Whois. Saying there is no problem because it can’t be proven when it was problem prior to GDPR is a problem. The company that does provide proof is often dismissed. * All action items are posted on the wiki and available for the group to review – these are sent out on in the notes and agenda reminders. On p. 25 of the gap analysis doc, on the left-hand side, Support Staff has filled in the group’s responses to Q2. Groups now need to drill down on the previous suggestions they made and provide this info in the right-hand column. Please also review the memo provided by ICANN org on ARS and consider this in your response. * The question should be asked re: controllership to have an answer that is useful to the team. * Review input received on google doc [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUs…>, see page 25 - How and by whom can it be measured whether current goal(s) of existing accuracy requirements are met? * RrSG: Registrars could report on accuracy measurements – difficulties – there is no requirement for registrars to track this and put the data together in this kind of manner. Will this group accept data provided by registrars? Another option could be to have a third party measure data, but this would necessitate a data protection agreement. Could also look at number of complaints processed by ICANN compliance, but based on others’ comments, it appears these complaints are not submitted. * Even if RAA provisions are followed scrupulously, there is a still a substantial amount of inaccurate data. * Hope to see the evidence supporting this claim in the homework response. * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 10 February at 14.00 UTC)

1 0

Scoping the issue
by Volker Greimann Feb. 3, 2022

Feb. 3, 2022

Hi all, as I was on the road earlier, I could not read Steves rebuttal of my points in the chat, but I was surprised that this basic point gave rise to one, so maybe I was unclear in how I presented it. To scope an issue with accuracy that can be used as a basis for the work of a future PDP, we do need evidence that there currently, right now there is an issue with the accuracy that is so impactful that it warrants setting aside volunteer and ICANN staff time to find a solution. So far, we have heard incidental evidence that can or cannot provide an insight, but does not allow to draw a general conclusion. In the end, the cases that give rise to such reports could be looked at as edge cases as all abuse essentially is an edge case to all the non-abusive registrations that significantly outnumber those being used in an abusive manner. To effectively lead to a PDP that can make meaningful policy recommendations, we must first identify a general problem that this policy should address. The more defined the issue is scoped, the better. If on the other hand, we cannot even identify a general problem, is there a need for policy work at all? I was wondering about Alans statement that there is historical data that shows issues with accuracy, but having looked at the same data sets from previous ARS studies, the opposite seems to be the case. From round to round, the ARS data has shown the trend towards more accuracy, e.g. accuracy has been improving as a result of the 2013 RAA. Moreover, the contactibility rating of registration records showed that almost all data sets fulfilled the purpose of contactibility. Side note: Alan also alluded to cases of testing the forwarding functionalities of various contracted parties, but have such failures been brought to the attention of the affected contracted parties so they could analyse and fix those issues? Or to the attention of ICANN compliance? If these cases have been as common as indicated, should there not have been a significant number of reports in the recent compliance updates and/or compliance action to address these deficiencies? -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached.

1 0

Compilation of studies referenced in the gap analysis
by Marika Konings Feb. 3, 2022

Feb. 3, 2022

Dear All, As mentioned during today’s meeting, the staff support team has compiled the different studies referenced by the different groups in the gap analysis so that the team can further review if/how the data can be used or further considered. If there is anything missing, please let us know. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

1 0

Post call | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 03 February 2022
by Terri Agnew Feb. 3, 2022

Feb. 3, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team held on Thursday, 03 February 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/94D3Cg> (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