Reminder homework assignment & proposed Agenda for Meeting #2 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team
Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team which is scheduled for Tuesday 12 October at 14.00 UTC. Note that this is intended to be a running agenda for the next couple of meetings – items not covered will carry over to the next meeting. As a reminder, please respond to the questions identified in the assignment background briefings as soon as possible, but no later than Monday 11 October: * Assignment #1 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84...> * Assignment #2 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit__;!!PtGJab4!pZhkUTK4NeZFLS0ZpANDf6HYgZt4s0dAQsMJrF2di8O37askrPxZaPbScFYUnkqzmEX7JSfwfcw$> * Assignment #3 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit__;!!PtGJab4!pZhkUTK4NeZFLS0ZpANDf6HYgZt4s0dAQsMJrF2di8O37askrPxZaPbScFYUnkqzmEX7M2fu4nQ$> * Assignment #4 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXyt...> Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika 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 * Miscellaneous administrative issues 1. Background briefing assignment #1 - see https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit> * Review assignment #1 * Consider questions and team input received: · What information is missing from the list of existing accuracy obligations? · 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? · In relation to the materials provided concerning definitions, are there references sources missing? · What working definition should be used and why? * 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<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 recommendations for how accuracy levels can be determined and measured? * 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<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 (TBC based on responses to doodle poll - https://doodle.com/poll/2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link)
Good Morning, In working through the homework assignments, the RrSG would like clarity on assignments 3 and 4. As noted by Council and directly taken from our Wiki workspace "...For clarity, it is the expectation that the Scoping Team will first address items 1 and 2 and only once those are completed it will commence work on items 3 and 4...".
From the instructions, it appears that we are to complete items 1 and 2 before working on 3 and 4. With that in mind, the RrSG will hold off on doing homework assignments 3 and 4 unless of course there is a misunderstanding or there are reasons why we are not following these instructions.
Thanks Roger ________________________________ From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 7:21 AM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Reminder homework assignment & proposed Agenda for Meeting #2 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team 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, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team which is scheduled for Tuesday 12 October at 14.00 UTC. Note that this is intended to be a running agenda for the next couple of meetings – items not covered will carry over to the next meeting. As a reminder, please respond to the questions identified in the assignment background briefings as soon as possible, but no later than Monday 11 October: * Assignment #1 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit [docs.google.com]<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> * Assignment #2 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit[docs.google.com]<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3%2Fedit__%3B!!PtGJab4!pZhkUTK4NeZFLS0ZpANDf6HYgZt4s0dAQsMJrF2di8O37askrPxZaPbScFYUnkqzmEX7JSfwfcw%24&data=04%7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171265198%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Av4CkEAgWUEDFfgzS50aZjPGMH8N7hvc0hHOtuo%2F2LA%3D&reserved=0> * Assignment #3 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit[docs.google.com]<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm%2Fedit__%3B!!PtGJab4!pZhkUTK4NeZFLS0ZpANDf6HYgZt4s0dAQsMJrF2di8O37askrPxZaPbScFYUnkqzmEX7M2fu4nQ%24&data=04%7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171275190%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=92aL5q%2ByINcCZeEoVPqkr5ZyQa2RI9AwDTDQoosmSRY%3D&reserved=0> * Assignment #4 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit [docs.google.com]<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense...> Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika 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 * Miscellaneous administrative issues 1. Background briefing assignment #1 - see https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx%2Fedit&data=04%7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171285183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=AMknTfXeUnnimZrDnwi8tY1IYwAtPgkS3NuJZr%2F%2Faak%3D&reserved=0> * Review assignment #1 * Consider questions and team input received: · What information is missing from the list of existing accuracy obligations? · 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? · In relation to the materials provided concerning definitions, are there references sources missing? · What working definition should be used and why? * 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<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3%2Fedit&data=04%7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171285183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=UzDwd%2BqwcnCGODx38qMF%2BWdh9vO7JEcDJ3yBCp4pvxU%3D&reserved=0> * Review assignment #2 * 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? * 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<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm%2Fedit&data=04%7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171295179%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=S1C0np9m67g%2FqMgG1g1t3QR5DQuXjRWyf2dygkRsW0E%3D&reserved=0> * 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<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD%2Fedit&data=04%7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171295179%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=bRZT7jylERM7s%2F%2Fk%2FOC5f0zNhG1JCsDGwlxKp3SCvV8%3D&reserved=0> * 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<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoodle.com%2Fpoll%2F2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8%3Futm_source%3Dpoll%26utm_medium%3Dlink&data=04%7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171305178%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=G783Ktg7%2F17%2BKde8SuiQnRTLUkGA%2BVO6La3HiD2GQDQ%3D&reserved=0>)
Hello Roger, So this is definitely a topic for discussion for Tuesday. So allow me to share my current best thinking on the matter, although it will obviously be up to the entire Working Group to decide how we proceed. So I agree logically that we cannot undertake an “Effectiveness” and an “Impact and Improvement” analysis until we have principally completed the work in Tasks #1 and #2. However, I believe there is some preparatory work that can be undertaken in connection with Tasks #3 and #4. Allow me to offer one such example I was discussing with our ICANN Org colleagues today. There is a specific reference in the original ICANN Org briefing material regarding the ARS which states in relevant part “ICANN org believes that it may be beneficial to commission a study, with input and agreement from the community, on how accuracy of registration data might be measured.” As you may recall during my direct engagement with the RrSG, one of your colleagues suggested some potential alternative survey options. So this got me thinking about how the funds for such a survey/study would be allocated. I went back through ICANN’s old budgeting documents and found that ICANN was allocating over 300K a year on both ARS surveys. Therefore, I believe it would be prudent as Chair to undertake steps to raise with ICANN Org via the GNSO Council the need to potentially allocate funds for this survey/study based on historical data points. To be clear, until we have completed Tasks #1 & #2 it will not be possible to provide a specific price, however, I do feel it would be prudent to inform ICANN of these potential expenses so funds could be made available in a timely fashion. Now while I respect your potential black letter interpretation of the phrase “it is the expectation that the Scoping Team will first address items 1 and 2 and only once those are completed it will commence work on items 3 and 4” that same document in the Timing and Timeline section also says “although it is understood that for the later assignments it may not be possible to provide specific details until earlier assignments are complete or underway. There might be efficiencies and overlap across tasks so that the work can be completed in a year.” So considering the totality of the information currently before me, I believe that our primary focus as you stated in your email needs to be Task #1 and #2, and that there should be no substantive analysis of Task #3 and #4 until Task #1 and #2 are near completion. That being said, I do believe it is appropriate under the timeline set forth by the Council to begin preparatory work on Task #3 and #4 consistent with my original statements regarding an “agile” versus a traditional “waterfall” project management approach. If the Working Group decides to go in a different direction, I will respect their decision. If there is an impasse we will collectively cross that bridge when we get there. Hopefully you found this helpful. Best regards, Michael From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 12:12 PM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Reminder homework assignment & proposed Agenda for Meeting #2 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team Good Morning, In working through the homework assignments, the RrSG would like clarity on assignments 3 and 4. As noted by Council and directly taken from our Wiki workspace "...For clarity, it is the expectation that the Scoping Team will first address items 1 and 2 and only once those are completed it will commence work on items 3 and 4...".
From the instructions, it appears that we are to complete items 1 and 2 before working on 3 and 4. With that in mind, the RrSG will hold off on doing homework assignments 3 and 4 unless of course there is a misunderstanding or there are reasons why we are not following these instructions.
Thanks Roger _____ From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 7:21 AM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> > Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Reminder homework assignment & proposed Agenda for Meeting #2 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team 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, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team which is scheduled for Tuesday 12 October at 14.00 UTC. Note that this is intended to be a running agenda for the next couple of meetings – items not covered will carry over to the next meeting. As a reminder, please respond to the questions identified in the assignment background briefings as soon as possible, but no later than Monday 11 October: * Assignment #1 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit [docs.google.com] * Assignment #2 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit[do cs.google.com] * Assignment #3 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit[do cs.google.com] * Assignment #4 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit [docs.google.com] Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #2 Tuesday 12 October at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (10 minutes) a. Results of doodle poll & schedule of meetings going forward b. Miscellaneous administrative issues 2. Background briefing assignment #1 - see <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34 5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171285183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =AMknTfXeUnnimZrDnwi8tY1IYwAtPgkS3NuJZr%2F%2Faak%3D&reserved=0> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit a. Review assignment #1 b. Consider questions and team input received: * What information is missing from the list of existing accuracy obligations? * 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? * In relation to the materials provided concerning definitions, are there references sources missing? * What working definition should be used and why? a. What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? b. Confirm next steps 3. Background briefing assignment #2 – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34 5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171285183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =UzDwd%2BqwcnCGODx38qMF%2BWdh9vO7JEcDJ3yBCp4pvxU%3D&reserved=0> a. Review assignment #2 b. 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? * 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? c. Confirm next steps 4. Background briefing assignment #3 – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34 5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171295179%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =S1C0np9m67g%2FqMgG1g1t3QR5DQuXjRWyf2dygkRsW0E%3D&reserved=0> a. Review assignment #3 b. 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)? c. What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? d. Confirm next steps 5. Background briefing assignment #4 - see <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34 5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171295179%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =bRZT7jylERM7s%2F%2Fk%2FOC5f0zNhG1JCsDGwlxKp3SCvV8%3D&reserved=0> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit a. Review assignment #4 b. 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? c. What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? d. Confirm next steps 6. Confirm action items & next meeting (TBC based on responses to doodle poll - https://doodle.com/poll/2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8?utm_source=poll <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoodle.co m%2Fpoll%2F2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8%3Futm_source%3Dpoll%26utm_medium%3Dlink&data=04% 7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com%7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14 a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171305178%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8 eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sd ata=G783Ktg7%2F17%2BKde8SuiQnRTLUkGA%2BVO6La3HiD2GQDQ%3D&reserved=0> &utm_medium=link)
Hi Mike, while I appreciate the effort to save us all some time by doing as much in parallel as possible, we should first and foremost be following our instructions. Depending on the outcomes of our deliberations on topics 1 and 2, the basis for our discussions of topics 3 and 4 might change, rendering any previously undertaken work moot. Sincerely, -- 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. On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 7:35 PM Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> wrote:
Hello Roger,
So this is definitely a topic for discussion for Tuesday. So allow me to share my current best thinking on the matter, although it will obviously be up to the entire Working Group to decide how we proceed. So I agree logically that we cannot undertake an “Effectiveness” and an “Impact and Improvement” analysis until we have principally completed the work in Tasks #1 and #2. However, I believe there is some preparatory work that can be undertaken in connection with Tasks #3 and #4. Allow me to offer one such example I was discussing with our ICANN Org colleagues today.
There is a specific reference in the original ICANN Org briefing material regarding the ARS which states in relevant part “ICANN org believes that it may be beneficial to commission a study, with input and agreement from the community, on how accuracy of registration data might be measured.” As you may recall during my direct engagement with the RrSG, one of your colleagues suggested some potential alternative survey options. So this got me thinking about how the funds for such a survey/study would be allocated. I went back through ICANN’s old budgeting documents and found that ICANN was allocating over 300K a year on both ARS surveys.
Therefore, I believe it would be prudent as Chair to undertake steps to raise with ICANN Org via the GNSO Council the need to potentially allocate funds for this survey/study based on historical data points. To be clear, until we have completed Tasks #1 & #2 it will not be possible to provide a specific price, however, I do feel it would be prudent to inform ICANN of these potential expenses so funds could be made available in a timely fashion.
Now while I respect your potential black letter interpretation of the phrase “it is the expectation that the Scoping Team will first address items 1 and 2 and only once those are completed it will commence work on items 3 and 4” that same document in the Timing and Timeline section also says “although it is understood that for the later assignments it may not be possible to provide specific details until earlier assignments are complete or underway. There might be efficiencies and overlap across tasks so that the work can be completed in a year.”
So considering the totality of the information currently before me, I believe that our primary focus as you stated in your email needs to be Task #1 and #2, and that there should be no substantive analysis of Task #3 and #4 until Task #1 and #2 are near completion. That being said, I do believe it is appropriate under the timeline set forth by the Council to begin preparatory work on Task #3 and #4 consistent with my original statements regarding an “agile” versus a traditional “waterfall” project management approach. If the Working Group decides to go in a different direction, I will respect their decision. If there is an impasse we will collectively cross that bridge when we get there.
Hopefully you found this helpful.
Best regards,
Michael
From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 12:12 PM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Reminder homework assignment & proposed Agenda for Meeting #2 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team
Good Morning,
In working through the homework assignments, the RrSG would like clarity on assignments 3 and 4. As noted by Council and directly taken from our Wiki workspace "...For clarity, it is the expectation that the Scoping Team will first address items 1 and 2 and only once those are completed it will commence work on items 3 and 4...".
From the instructions, it appears that we are to complete items 1 and 2 before working on 3 and 4. With that in mind, the RrSG will hold off on doing homework assignments 3 and 4 unless of course there is a misunderstanding or there are reasons why we are not following these instructions.
Thanks
Roger
_____
From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 7:21 AM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> > Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Reminder homework assignment & proposed Agenda for Meeting #2 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team
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,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team which is scheduled for Tuesday 12 October at 14.00 UTC. Note that this is intended to be a running agenda for the next couple of meetings – items not covered will carry over to the next meeting.
As a reminder, please respond to the questions identified in the assignment background briefings as soon as possible, but no later than Monday 11 October:
* Assignment #1 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit [docs.google.com]
* Assignment #2 -
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit[do cs.google.com]
* Assignment #3 -
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit[do cs.google.com]
* Assignment #4 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit [docs.google.com]
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #2
Tuesday 12 October at 14.00 UTC
1. Welcome & Chair Updates (10 minutes)
a. Results of doodle poll & schedule of meetings going forward b. Miscellaneous administrative issues
2. Background briefing assignment #1 - see < https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog
le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.googl...> 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34
5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171285183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ
WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =AMknTfXeUnnimZrDnwi8tY1IYwAtPgkS3NuJZr%2F%2Faak%3D&reserved=0> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit
a. Review assignment #1 b. Consider questions and team input received:
* What information is missing from the list of existing accuracy obligations?
* 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?
* In relation to the materials provided concerning definitions, are there references sources missing?
* What working definition should be used and why?
a. What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? b. Confirm next steps
3. Background briefing assignment #2 – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit < https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog
le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.googl...> 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34
5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171285183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ
WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =UzDwd%2BqwcnCGODx38qMF%2BWdh9vO7JEcDJ3yBCp4pvxU%3D&reserved=0>
a. Review assignment #2 b. 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?
* 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?
c. Confirm next steps
4. Background briefing assignment #3 – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit < https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog
le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.googl...> 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34
5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171295179%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ
WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =S1C0np9m67g%2FqMgG1g1t3QR5DQuXjRWyf2dygkRsW0E%3D&reserved=0>
a. Review assignment #3 b. 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)?
c. What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? d. Confirm next steps
5. Background briefing assignment #4 - see < https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog
le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.googl...> 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34
5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171295179%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ
WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =bRZT7jylERM7s%2F%2Fk%2FOC5f0zNhG1JCsDGwlxKp3SCvV8%3D&reserved=0> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit
a. Review assignment #4 b. 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?
c. What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? d. Confirm next steps
6. Confirm action items & next meeting (TBC based on responses to doodle poll - https://doodle.com/poll/2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8?utm_source=poll < https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoodle.co
m%2Fpoll%2F2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8%3Futm_source%3Dpoll%26utm_medium%3Dlink&data=04% 7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14
a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171305178%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8
eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sd ata=G783Ktg7%2F17%2BKde8SuiQnRTLUkGA%2BVO6La3HiD2GQDQ%3D&reserved=0> &utm_medium=link)
_______________________________________________ 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.
Volker, Seems like we have our first procedural topic of discussion for tomorrow. Let’s see what the whole group has to say on this issue, hopefully we can reach a mutual resolution internally within the group. If not we can revert back to the Council to seek clarification/resolution of this issue. Best regards, Michael From: Volker Greimann <volker.greimann@centralnic.com> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 3:57 AM To: michael@palage.com Cc: Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com>; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Reminder homework assignment & proposed Agenda for Meeting #2 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team Hi Mike, while I appreciate the effort to save us all some time by doing as much in parallel as possible, we should first and foremost be following our instructions. Depending on the outcomes of our deliberations on topics 1 and 2, the basis for our discussions of topics 3 and 4 might change, rendering any previously undertaken work moot. Sincerely, -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: <http://www.key-systems.net/> 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. On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 7:35 PM Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> wrote: Hello Roger, So this is definitely a topic for discussion for Tuesday. So allow me to share my current best thinking on the matter, although it will obviously be up to the entire Working Group to decide how we proceed. So I agree logically that we cannot undertake an “Effectiveness” and an “Impact and Improvement” analysis until we have principally completed the work in Tasks #1 and #2. However, I believe there is some preparatory work that can be undertaken in connection with Tasks #3 and #4. Allow me to offer one such example I was discussing with our ICANN Org colleagues today. There is a specific reference in the original ICANN Org briefing material regarding the ARS which states in relevant part “ICANN org believes that it may be beneficial to commission a study, with input and agreement from the community, on how accuracy of registration data might be measured.” As you may recall during my direct engagement with the RrSG, one of your colleagues suggested some potential alternative survey options. So this got me thinking about how the funds for such a survey/study would be allocated. I went back through ICANN’s old budgeting documents and found that ICANN was allocating over 300K a year on both ARS surveys. Therefore, I believe it would be prudent as Chair to undertake steps to raise with ICANN Org via the GNSO Council the need to potentially allocate funds for this survey/study based on historical data points. To be clear, until we have completed Tasks #1 & #2 it will not be possible to provide a specific price, however, I do feel it would be prudent to inform ICANN of these potential expenses so funds could be made available in a timely fashion. Now while I respect your potential black letter interpretation of the phrase “it is the expectation that the Scoping Team will first address items 1 and 2 and only once those are completed it will commence work on items 3 and 4” that same document in the Timing and Timeline section also says “although it is understood that for the later assignments it may not be possible to provide specific details until earlier assignments are complete or underway. There might be efficiencies and overlap across tasks so that the work can be completed in a year.” So considering the totality of the information currently before me, I believe that our primary focus as you stated in your email needs to be Task #1 and #2, and that there should be no substantive analysis of Task #3 and #4 until Task #1 and #2 are near completion. That being said, I do believe it is appropriate under the timeline set forth by the Council to begin preparatory work on Task #3 and #4 consistent with my original statements regarding an “agile” versus a traditional “waterfall” project management approach. If the Working Group decides to go in a different direction, I will respect their decision. If there is an impasse we will collectively cross that bridge when we get there. Hopefully you found this helpful. Best regards, Michael From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Roger D Carney via GNSO-Accuracy-ST Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 12:12 PM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Reminder homework assignment & proposed Agenda for Meeting #2 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team Good Morning, In working through the homework assignments, the RrSG would like clarity on assignments 3 and 4. As noted by Council and directly taken from our Wiki workspace "...For clarity, it is the expectation that the Scoping Team will first address items 1 and 2 and only once those are completed it will commence work on items 3 and 4...".
From the instructions, it appears that we are to complete items 1 and 2 before working on 3 and 4. With that in mind, the RrSG will hold off on doing homework assignments 3 and 4 unless of course there is a misunderstanding or there are reasons why we are not following these instructions.
Thanks Roger _____ From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> > > on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > > Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 7:21 AM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> > <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> > > Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Reminder homework assignment & proposed Agenda for Meeting #2 Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team 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, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team which is scheduled for Tuesday 12 October at 14.00 UTC. Note that this is intended to be a running agenda for the next couple of meetings – items not covered will carry over to the next meeting. As a reminder, please respond to the questions identified in the assignment background briefings as soon as possible, but no later than Monday 11 October: * Assignment #1 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit [docs.google.com <http://docs.google.com> ] * Assignment #2 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit[do <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit%5B...> cs.google.com <http://cs.google.com> ] * Assignment #3 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit[do <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit%5B...> cs.google.com <http://cs.google.com> ] * Assignment #4 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit [docs.google.com <http://docs.google.com> ] Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #2 Tuesday 12 October at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (10 minutes) a. Results of doodle poll & schedule of meetings going forward b. Miscellaneous administrative issues 2. Background briefing assignment #1 - see <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.googl...> le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com <http://40godaddy.com> %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34 5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171285183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =AMknTfXeUnnimZrDnwi8tY1IYwAtPgkS3NuJZr%2F%2Faak%3D&reserved=0> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit <http://e.com/document/d/16mFQkzM4tTj84736J-tlZ8T7tFeiFwfx/edit> a. Review assignment #1 b. Consider questions and team input received: * What information is missing from the list of existing accuracy obligations? * 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? * In relation to the materials provided concerning definitions, are there references sources missing? * What working definition should be used and why? a. What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? b. Confirm next steps 3. Background briefing assignment #2 – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3/edit <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.googl...> le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1OyzzAjZgvNkfZ5EekUvJ7PQg80vNZvJ3%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com <http://40godaddy.com> %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34 5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171285183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =UzDwd%2BqwcnCGODx38qMF%2BWdh9vO7JEcDJ3yBCp4pvxU%3D&reserved=0> a. Review assignment #2 b. 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? * 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? c. Confirm next steps 4. Background briefing assignment #3 – see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm/edit <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.googl...> le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1NiwMk6qHOQRn7VdcW0Paj5OoC3tWAQpm%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com <http://40godaddy.com> %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34 5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171295179%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =S1C0np9m67g%2FqMgG1g1t3QR5DQuXjRWyf2dygkRsW0E%3D&reserved=0> a. Review assignment #3 b. 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)? c. What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? d. Confirm next steps 5. Background briefing assignment #4 - see <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.googl...> le.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD%2Fedit&data=04%7C0 1%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com <http://40godaddy.com> %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14a34 5a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171295179%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =bRZT7jylERM7s%2F%2Fk%2FOC5f0zNhG1JCsDGwlxKp3SCvV8%3D&reserved=0> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8t-uH4gRqXytHOGnIkZ2qMSJctgR_kD/edit a. Review assignment #4 b. 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? c. What next steps and approach should the team take to address this assignment? d. Confirm next steps 6. Confirm action items & next meeting (TBC based on responses to doodle poll - https://doodle.com/poll/2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8?utm_source=poll <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoodle.co <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoodle.com...> m%2Fpoll%2F2p7fpqf4hrmg6si8%3Futm_source%3Dpoll%26utm_medium%3Dlink&data=04% 7C01%7Crcarney%40godaddy.com <http://40godaddy.com> %7Cd35f7bd13d6d457dbcaa08d98a56372b%7Cd5f1622b14 a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637692925171305178%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8 eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sd ata=G783Ktg7%2F17%2BKde8SuiQnRTLUkGA%2BVO6La3HiD2GQDQ%3D&reserved=0> &utm_medium=link) _______________________________________________ GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list GNSO-Accuracy-ST@icann.org <mailto: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.
participants (4)
-
Marika Konings -
Michael Palage -
Roger D Carney -
Volker Greimann