Thanks Steve. My colleague Roger just asked me the same question re the Org field 😊 We can return to the Whois Accuracy Program Spec. For the answer; for the name and org, we are validating for the presence of data in the field. The email, phone, and postal address fields have formatting obligations also. Thanks, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 From: Steve Crocker Sent: December 1, 2021 10:32 AM To: Sarah Wyld Cc: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] SSAC inputs on assignment #1 Sarah, Thanks. I said V0 what I expected the answer to be, but I didn't mean to imply I think that's the right answer. That said, what sort of syntactic validation is applied to, say, the name of the organization? Steve On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:30 AM Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> wrote: Hi Steve & team, There’s perhaps an error in this chart? Where it says “V0 for all other data elements” I think it should be V1, as syntactical validation is required for all data elements, not only the country code (already marked as V1). Thanks, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 From: Steve Crocker Sent: December 1, 2021 10:24 AM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] SSAC inputs on assignment #1 I've added the questions shown below. In the google doc, they're numbered 16-18. Copying them into this email renumbered them 1-3. My purpose in this note is to flag a couple of points related to points that have come up in earlier discussion. The first question emphasizes there are many different data elements, each of which may -- and most likely will -- have its own validation level. Moreover, for purposes of this question, the V2 level, operational validation, is understood to be the same as agreed upon contractual clause that's currently under discussion. The second question addresses the point that some registrars and registries may impose higher levels of validation than is required under the RA and RAA. The third question asks for clarification as to whether the validation level is disclosed to the requester whenever the data element is provided in a response. Among other things, this question speaks to Alan's concern that a registrar might do operational validation of, say, the phone number but not the email address, but then provide the email address and not the phone number in response to a request. Thanks, Steve 1. What are the accuracy requirements for *each* of the data elements collected by the registrar? If possible, use the four level scale of V0, V1, V2, V3. V0 = No validation required. V1 = Syntactic validation V2 = Operational validation V3 = Identity validation The expected answer is V2 for phone and/or email V1 for country code V0 for all other data elements 2. Are registries and/or registrars permitted to perform or impose a higher level of validation? The expected answer is yes, but the documentation is not explicit. 3. Are registrars required to provide the validation level along with the data element in their responses, either as part of the response or in their documentation? The expected answer is no, but the answer should be yes. On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:06 AM Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> wrote: Good Morning, Thanks Melina. In regards to the text that you highlighted, for clarity, my statement was point in time (Oct 21 and Oct 26), not since. Thanks Roger From: STROUNGI Melina <Melina.STROUNGI@ec.europa.eu> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:42 AM To: Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com>; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual Construct/ Definition You don't often get email from melina.stroungi@ec.europa.eu. Learn why this is important Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Dear all, Unfortunately, I was away on sick leave and have not managed to hear the recordings; so apologies in advance if I have missed important updates. Just a first reaction in relation to the point below (in highlight) that no one initially spoke in objection to the working definition; this is not entirely… accurate ☺ I recall I had made certain remarks on the basis of Michael’s proposed wording – some orally and some inserted in the google doc. So I personally used Michael’s reworded construct as baseline. I am not aware if Michael’s proposed wording was entirely dismissed during the last discussions where I was not present, but for sure I had expressed my objections at the initially proposed ‘working definition/construct’ – for instance I had stressed we should also encompass any related purposes – not re-invent or amend current purposes but simply state what already exists. I understand there is confusion from many of us – including myself – as to what is the current status/starting basis, but hopefully we can all discuss about it in our upcoming meeting. Best regards, Melina From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 3:13 PM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual Construct/ Definition Good Morning, Thank you for your note Michael, but I think it may be a bit misleading and the RrSG does not (and did not) agree with the suggested updates to the current working definition of accuracy. As you have reviewed the call on Nov 4th several times, you will have noted that I objected to these changes around the 1 hour and 11 minute point. Specifically, around adding any mention of identity requirements as that is just not the case in our contract or policy. I believe the reference to ICANN's report/memo below in your email, leaves off some important language/context. First, this report provides information on how ICANN Compliance operates, it does not add requirements (that is only done in contracts or Policy). Second, as I have mentioned several times, the mention of "identity" here does not (and cannot, see first point) add any requirements on the CP, it only states that ICANN Compliance may ask for "...further information concerning their findings...", it does not ask or even suggest that the Registrar do anything more than what they have already done in their investigation. The one item I do believe we agreed to was around the "affirmative response" idea. I don't have the specifics on this one but I think Sarah brought up support on adding language around that idea. Additionally, as I (and others) have mentioned many times we did not provide a proposed definition we provided the current working definition. I understand that people may want to update/expand that definition and I believe that is why the GNSO Council formed this Scoping Team. I will also point to prior calls, like the Oct 21st call where this working definition was presented, and we had agreement from several SGs, staff and the Chair that this was the baseline definition that we would work from moving forward. I will note that I saw no chat nor anyone speak in objection to this working definition. I once again brought this point of agreement up during our ICANN session (36 min) and once again I did not see or hear any objections to this being the baseline. Obviously, some minor tweaks would occur, but the suggested changes were not minor and adds responsibilities that just do not exist today. To be clear the RrSG does not agree with the suggested updates to the working definition. Thanks Roger From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 1:57 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' <lschulman@inta.org>; 'Sarah Wyld' <swyld@tucows.com>; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual Construct/ Definition Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Hello All, As someone that watched the video recording twice allow me to recount the events of Nov 4th. In advance of the call there had been two “definitions” (contractual construction / explanations) put forth for consideration. One by the Registrars and the one put forward by myself. In an effort to reconcile these two definitions, I opted to mark-up the Registrar’s “definition”. The first change was replacing the phrase “shall strictly” with “is.” Specifically I cited to Background Briefing Assignment #1 which stated in relevant part that: However, if the complaint is about identity (e.g., the registrant is not who they say they are), Contractual Compliance may ask the registrar to provide further information. (emphasis added). After the group acknowledged that this excerpt from the ICANN briefing document showed a larger remit than just syntactical and operational accuracy, the “shall strictly” phrase was redlined and replaced with ‘is.”. Alan Greenburg from ALAC tired to propose an alternative wording but the redline stayed as “is”. The next proposed redline was inspired largely by the following excerpt from the ICANN72 GAC communique which states in relevant part: The GAC gives particular importance to the verification, validation and correction of all registration data by registrars, and certain registries, in line with their contractual obligations, and supports rigorous monitoring and enforcement of such contractual obligations by ICANN. (emphasis added) These changes again were made with no substantive opposition from the group. As I have stated previously these agreed upon changes where lost when the document was exited at the end of the call. I have consulted with ICANN Org and they are unaware of how these changes were lost. However, I believe the video clearly shows that the deletion was NOT an intentional act because no one spoke to the text being removed, it just disappeared. Please review the video for yourself, I have provided the time stamp to help make everyone’s review easier. Now if the RySG and RsSG are going to maintain their objection to the previous redline “definition” and instead advocate for the RrSG “definition” we will address this topic AFTER the we conclude the questions to ICANN Org, but before we begin our GAP analysis. I do have a specific request for Marc, Beth and Sofie. During the next RySG call could you seek clarification from the RySG on whether Registries believe they have a right under their Registry Agreement to verify the accuracy of data elements that they process as part of domain name registrations in their respective TLDs. Additionally, what steps if any does ICANN Compliance take in connection with Registry Audits regarding this verification as I do believe it is relevant to our discussion here in this Working Group. Listed below are a non-exhaustive list of Registry Operators that involve some level of accuracy /registrant vetting beyond just email and phone accuracy (syntactical and operational) as part of their registry operations: 1. From the original 2001 proof of concept round, .AERO was one of the first TLD that required the process of registrant data prior to being able to obtain a gTLD domain name registration. If you look at the current .AERO registration website you will see the following requirement: Obtain your .aero ID, prior to registration of your chosen domain name through a .aero authorised registrar, this unique validity process screens potential domain registrants thus ensuring the integrity and the exclusivity of the .aero domain. See https://information.aero/registration and https://information.aero/node/add/request-aero-id 2. From the 2004 Sponsored round perhaps the best example was .XXX which made the following representations: 5.0 PREVENTING ABUSIVE REGISTRATIONS The Registry will authenticate members of the Sponsored Community, as part of the name registration process. As part of this process, the Registry will validate contact information for the Registrant, secure the Registrant’s affirmative consent to the Registry-Registrant Agreement, and issue unique Membership Credentials. The Membership Application Process must be completed before a domain name is permitted to resolve in the TLD. See https://www.icmregistry.com/about/policies/launch/#general_aval 3. fTLD submitted an approved RSEP to ICANN for the processing of Registrant information prior to registration. The name of this RSEP is Dynamic Registration Verification and is available here, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rsep-2017039-bank-et-al-request-... This webpage shows the information that fTLD collects from prospective registrants as part of their verification process, see https://www.register.bank/get-started/ 4. NABP, the Registry Operator of .PHARMACY, has also vetted prospective registrants as part of its registration process, see https://nabp.pharmacy/programs/accreditations-inspections/dotpharmacy/#apply 5. In addition, every .BRAND Registry Operator has a requirement to limit registrations in that TLD to either the Brand owner or “Trademark Licensee” so this would be a further example of where a Registry Operator is processing data about a Registrant (e.g. Trademark Licensee) that may or may not appear in the Whois/RDDS output. 6. There are also numerous RSEPs filed by Registry Operators seeking “Registration Validation” which clearly go above just syntactical and operational validation, e.g. Chinese Real Name Verification. I hope this removes any ambiguity as to the events of Nov 4th. If, however, the RySG and RrSG maintain their objection we will revisit prior to our GAP analysis discussion as noted above. Best regards, Michael From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 1:06 PM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>; michael@palage.com; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual Construct/ Definition Hi, The changes were definitely tracked. I was under the impression that we agreed to those changes. If so, then they should be reinserted as a compromise that we can live with for the purposes of the scoping exercise. Any binding definitions will be negotiated by the eventual PDP. With kind regards, Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: LSSchulman lschulman@inta.org, www.inta.org From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 3:27 PM To: michael@palage.com; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual Construct/ Definition Hi team, I (of course) can’t speak for the registries or answer this question, but I do want to say, I’m glad the text in the screenshot was not updated. The definition in that section of the document should remain as we had proposed it back on Oct 29, and any changes should be tracked elsewhere. Maybe that’s why the changes were removed? See you tomorrow, thanks! Sarah -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 From: Michael Palage Sent: November 26, 2021 12:02 PM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual Construct/ Definition Hello All, For those colleagues that celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday yesterday, I hope you had an enjoyable time with your family and friends and did not eat too much. I would also like to thanks those team members that showed up for our brief Administrative Call yesterday. In preparing for the call yesterday I noted some of the new additions added by the RySG to the questions for ICANN staff. Thank you for these additions Roger. This flagged a previous issue which I had raised with our ICANN colleagues last weekend and it involves the current working contractual construct / definition. In the RySG questions they cited to the proposed RrSG accuracy “definition” (aka contractual construct): "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." Last week when I was looking for the latest and greatest contractual construct/definition I noted that there was a technical glitch when reviewing the Zoom recording which I will summarize below. If you go to the Zoom recording from the Nov 4th call you will see that the red lined version of the contractual construct/definition which was agreed to during the call and which is reflected below. However, at the conclusion of the call as we were wrapping up the session, these edits were lost Therefore, I would like clarification from the RySG do they wish to cite the group’s current working contractual construct/definition that was agreed to during the Nov 4th call, or do they intend to cite to the RrSG pre November 4th call contractual construct/definition? I know these technical glitches, e.g. delta in Google Doc, Alan receiving emails, and the unavailability email archives makes things a little more challenging. However, I know our ICANN colleagues are working on the email issues, and I am sure we will be able to achieve most of our work asynchronously if we put our minds to it. Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list GNSO-Accuracy-ST@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.
