Combined Response Harald & Steve Response
Hello All, This is a joint response to the emails of Harald and Steve which both seem to focus on "purpose." Harald was articulating his view of purpose being "contact ability" and Steve articulating his view of purpose being focused on "parties receiving the data." Respectfully, I believe that defining "accuracy" is a condition precedent before we consider "purpose" based upon the following instructions in our Charter from the GNSO Council: In carrying out its work above, the Scoping Team is expected to take into account the policy recommendations from the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Team that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, including the EPDP-identified purposes and the related data processing activities. However, the scoping team is not tasked to review these purposes or suggest changes. If the scoping team finds that further review of these purposes is necessary, especially in the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, it will identify this as an area of further work in its recommendations. Our ability to suggest potential changes to "purpose" outside of those identified in EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #1 is limited to identifying potential changes necessary within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements. To be clear I am not making any determination at this time regarding necessity within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, although I suspect based on previous discussions where the individuals members will line up on this question. However, I am NOT asking that question at this time. I will be asking our ICANN Org colleagues to send out a Doddle Poll as that makes participation / non-participation easier to track. Best regards, Michael
Dear All, Per Michael’s request, please complete the following survey: https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6. Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able to participate. To view the responses, you can go here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0.... For those that already responded on the list with your answer, we would appreciate if you could also respond to the survey. Thanks, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> Reply to: "michael@palage.com" <michael@palage.com> Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 07:39 To: "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response Hello All, This is a joint response to the emails of Harald and Steve which both seem to focus on “purpose.” Harald was articulating his view of purpose being “contact ability” and Steve articulating his view of purpose being focused on “parties receiving the data.” Respectfully, I believe that defining “accuracy” is a condition precedent before we consider “purpose” based upon the following instructions in our Charter from the GNSO Council: In carrying out its work above, the Scoping Team is expected to take into account the policy recommendations from the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Team that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, including the EPDP-identified purposes and the related data processing activities. However, the scoping team is not tasked to review these purposes or suggest changes. If the scoping team finds that further review of these purposes is necessary, especially in the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, it will identify this as an area of further work in its recommendations. Our ability to suggest potential changes to “purpose” outside of those identified in EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #1 is limited to identifying potential changes necessary within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements. To be clear I am not making any determination at this time regarding necessity within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, although I suspect based on previous discussions where the individuals members will line up on this question. However, I am NOT asking that question at this time. I will be asking our ICANN Org colleagues to send out a Doddle Poll as that makes participation / non-participation easier to track. Best regards, Michael
Apologies, but please use this link to respond to the survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdL-R4Tk7pP86bMIRMX1tH1IA9-UgbHFYVJ.... Thanks to Sarah for helping solve the access issue! Best regards, Marika From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 12:47 To: "michael@palage.com" <michael@palage.com>, "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response Dear All, Per Michael’s request, please complete the following survey: https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6 [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6__;!!PtGJab4!r...>. Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able to participate. To view the responses, you can go here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVh...>. For those that already responded on the list with your answer, we would appreciate if you could also respond to the survey. Thanks, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> Reply to: "michael@palage.com" <michael@palage.com> Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 07:39 To: "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response Hello All, This is a joint response to the emails of Harald and Steve which both seem to focus on “purpose.” Harald was articulating his view of purpose being “contact ability” and Steve articulating his view of purpose being focused on “parties receiving the data.” Respectfully, I believe that defining “accuracy” is a condition precedent before we consider “purpose” based upon the following instructions in our Charter from the GNSO Council: In carrying out its work above, the Scoping Team is expected to take into account the policy recommendations from the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Team that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, including the EPDP-identified purposes and the related data processing activities. However, the scoping team is not tasked to review these purposes or suggest changes. If the scoping team finds that further review of these purposes is necessary, especially in the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, it will identify this as an area of further work in its recommendations. Our ability to suggest potential changes to “purpose” outside of those identified in EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #1 is limited to identifying potential changes necessary within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements. To be clear I am not making any determination at this time regarding necessity within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, although I suspect based on previous discussions where the individuals members will line up on this question. However, I am NOT asking that question at this time. I will be asking our ICANN Org colleagues to send out a Doddle Poll as that makes participation / non-participation easier to track. Best regards, Michael
Hello, may I suggest that the poll be changed as it would benefit from a "None of the Above" or "Other: [Specify]" Option. My response would be as follows: The term of accuracy should be defined as conforming with the data accuracy requirements of the RAA. -- 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. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:34 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Apologies, but please use this link to respond to the survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdL-R4Tk7pP86bMIRMX1tH1IA9-UgbHFYVJ.... Thanks to Sarah for helping solve the access issue!
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 12:47 *To: *"michael@palage.com" <michael@palage.com>, " gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response
Dear All,
Per Michael’s request, please complete the following survey: https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6 [forms.gle] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6__;!!PtGJab4!r...>. Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able to participate. To view the responses, you can go here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVh...>. For those that already responded on the list with your answer, we would appreciate if you could also respond to the survey.
Thanks,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
*From: *GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> *Reply to: *"michael@palage.com" <michael@palage.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 07:39 *To: *"gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> *Subject: *[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response
Hello All,
This is a joint response to the emails of Harald and Steve which both seem to focus on “purpose.” Harald was articulating his view of purpose being “contact ability” and Steve articulating his view of purpose being focused on “parties receiving the data.”
Respectfully, I believe that defining “accuracy” is a condition precedent before we consider “purpose” based upon the following instructions in our Charter from the GNSO Council:
In carrying out its work above, the Scoping Team is expected to take into account the policy recommendations from the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Team that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, including the *EPDP-identified purposes* and the related data processing activities. However, *the scoping team is not tasked to review these purposes or suggest changes*. *If the scoping team finds that further review of these purposes is necessary, especially in the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, it will identify this as an area of further work in its recommendations.*
Our ability to suggest potential changes to “purpose” outside of those identified in EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #1 is limited to identifying potential changes necessary within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements.
To be clear I am not making any determination at this time regarding necessity within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, although I suspect based on previous discussions where the individuals members will line up on this question. However, I am NOT asking that question at this time.
I will be asking our ICANN Org colleagues to send out a Doddle Poll as that makes participation / non-participation easier to track.
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.
Volker/Steve, As Chair I have always tried to be respectful of permitting a full dialog amongst participants. However, as a Chair I also need to make sure we are moving forward to a timely conclusion with our work. I respect your individual concerns of the collateral effects that making this initial determination may have on our future work, but it is a decision that nevertheless needs to be made. If a member chooses consciously not to respond to the survey for whatever reason, please indicate that via the list so we can document that fact and differentiate against team members that did not find the time to read/complete the survey. Best regards, Michael From: Volker Greimann <volker.greimann@centralnic.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 9:51 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: michael@palage.com; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response Hello, may I suggest that the poll be changed as it would benefit from a "None of the Above" or "Other: [Specify]" Option. My response would be as follows: The term of accuracy should be defined as conforming with the data accuracy requirements of the RAA. -- 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. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Virus-free. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> www.avast.com On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:34 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > wrote: Apologies, but please use this link to respond to the survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdL-R4Tk7pP86bMIRMX1tH1IA9-UgbHFYVJ.... Thanks to Sarah for helping solve the access issue! Best regards, Marika 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> > Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 12:47 To: "michael@palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> " <michael@palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> >, "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> " <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org <mailto:gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response Dear All, Per Michael’s request, please complete the following survey: https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6 [forms.gle] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6__;!!PtGJab4!r...> . Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able to participate. To view the responses, you can go here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVh...> . For those that already responded on the list with your answer, we would appreciate if you could also respond to the survey. Thanks, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael@palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> > Reply to: "michael@palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> " <michael@palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> > Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 07:39 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] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response Hello All, This is a joint response to the emails of Harald and Steve which both seem to focus on “purpose.” Harald was articulating his view of purpose being “contact ability” and Steve articulating his view of purpose being focused on “parties receiving the data.” Respectfully, I believe that defining “accuracy” is a condition precedent before we consider “purpose” based upon the following instructions in our Charter from the GNSO Council: In carrying out its work above, the Scoping Team is expected to take into account the policy recommendations from the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Team that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, including the EPDP-identified purposes and the related data processing activities. However, the scoping team is not tasked to review these purposes or suggest changes. If the scoping team finds that further review of these purposes is necessary, especially in the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, it will identify this as an area of further work in its recommendations. Our ability to suggest potential changes to “purpose” outside of those identified in EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #1 is limited to identifying potential changes necessary within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements. To be clear I am not making any determination at this time regarding necessity within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, although I suspect based on previous discussions where the individuals members will line up on this question. However, I am NOT asking that question at this time. I will be asking our ICANN Org colleagues to send out a Doddle Poll as that makes participation / non-participation easier to track. Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear Michael, with all due respect, I do not think this group will be well served by a poll question regarding the definition of accuracy that completely disregards the position of one participating group of what that definition should be. I think the RrSG has been abundantly clear about what we feel the baseline definition of accuracy should be. 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. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:50 PM Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> wrote:
Volker/Steve,
As Chair I have always tried to be respectful of permitting a full dialog amongst participants. However, as a Chair I also need to make sure we are moving forward to a timely conclusion with our work.
I respect your individual concerns of the collateral effects that making this initial determination may have on our future work, but it is a decision that nevertheless needs to be made.
If a member chooses consciously not to respond to the survey for whatever reason, please indicate that via the list so we can document that fact and differentiate against team members that did not find the time to read/complete the survey.
Best regards,
Michael
*From:* Volker Greimann <volker.greimann@centralnic.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 8, 2022 9:51 AM *To:* Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc:* michael@palage.com; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response
Hello,
may I suggest that the poll be changed as it would benefit from a "None of the Above" or "Other: [Specify]" Option.
My response would be as follows: The term of accuracy should be defined as conforming with the data accuracy requirements of the RAA.
-- 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.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...>
Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:34 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Apologies, but please use this link to respond to the survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdL-R4Tk7pP86bMIRMX1tH1IA9-UgbHFYVJ.... Thanks to Sarah for helping solve the access issue!
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 12:47 *To: *"michael@palage.com" <michael@palage.com>, " gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response
Dear All,
Per Michael’s request, please complete the following survey: https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6 [forms.gle] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6__;!!PtGJab4!r...>. Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able to participate. To view the responses, you can go here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVh...>. For those that already responded on the list with your answer, we would appreciate if you could also respond to the survey.
Thanks,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
*From: *GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> *Reply to: *"michael@palage.com" <michael@palage.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 07:39 *To: *"gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> *Subject: *[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response
Hello All,
This is a joint response to the emails of Harald and Steve which both seem to focus on “purpose.” Harald was articulating his view of purpose being “contact ability” and Steve articulating his view of purpose being focused on “parties receiving the data.”
Respectfully, I believe that defining “accuracy” is a condition precedent before we consider “purpose” based upon the following instructions in our Charter from the GNSO Council:
In carrying out its work above, the Scoping Team is expected to take into account the policy recommendations from the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Team that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, including the *EPDP-identified purposes* and the related data processing activities. However, *the scoping team is not tasked to review these purposes or suggest changes*. *If the scoping team finds that further review of these purposes is necessary, especially in the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, it will identify this as an area of further work in its recommendations.*
Our ability to suggest potential changes to “purpose” outside of those identified in EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #1 is limited to identifying potential changes necessary within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements.
To be clear I am not making any determination at this time regarding necessity within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, although I suspect based on previous discussions where the individuals members will line up on this question. However, I am NOT asking that question at this time.
I will be asking our ICANN Org colleagues to send out a Doddle Poll as that makes participation / non-participation easier to track.
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.
I do not agree with either of the options in the doodle poll. As I said the other day, I am not exactly delirious about the definition that the Rrs have come up with, as it seems to still dodge a clear analysis of what we mean by referring back to contract. I agree with Volker that you need to include a none of the above, or a place to propose something. Since the form would not let me abstain from choosing, I had to leave the poll....but please do not infer a lack of interest in this question from your failure to receive a reply from me. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin On 2022-03-08 9:50 a.m., Volker Greimann wrote:
Hello,
may I suggest that the poll be changed as it would benefit from a "None of the Above" or "Other: [Specify]" Option.
My response would be as follows: The term of accuracy should be defined as conforming with the data accuracy requirements of the RAA.
-- 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 <http://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.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:34 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Apologies, but please use this link to respond to the survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdL-R4Tk7pP86bMIRMX1tH1IA9-UgbHFYVJ.... Thanks to Sarah for helping solve the access issue!
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 12:47 *To: *"michael@palage.com" <michael@palage.com>, "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response
Dear All,
Per Michael’s request, please complete the following survey: https://forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6 [forms.gle] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/i9JUx45KSRWvktKU6__;!!PtGJab4!r...>. Please make sure that you are logged into your google account to be able to participate. To view the responses, you can go here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVhU6MMom7oykT3WMIYLjixanQd1L0... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/1huYshCctSE83LjVh...>. For those that already responded on the list with your answer, we would appreciate if you could also respond to the survey.
Thanks,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
*From: *GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> *Reply to: *"michael@palage.com" <michael@palage.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 07:39 *To: *"gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> *Subject: *[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Combined Response Harald & Steve Response
Hello All,
This is a joint response to the emails of Harald and Steve which both seem to focus on “purpose.” Harald was articulating his view of purpose being “contact ability” and Steve articulating his view of purpose being focused on “parties receiving the data.”
Respectfully, I believe that defining “accuracy” is a condition precedent before we consider “purpose” based upon the following instructions in our Charter from the GNSO Council:
In carrying out its work above, the Scoping Team is expected to take into account the policy recommendations from the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Team that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, including the *EPDP-identified purposes* and the related data processing activities. However, *the scoping team is not tasked to review these purposes or suggest changes*. *If the scoping team finds that further review of these purposes is necessary, especially in the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, it will identify this as an area of further work in its recommendations.*
**
Our ability to suggest potential changes to “purpose” outside of those identified in EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #1 is limited to identifying potential changes necessary within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements.
To be clear I am not making any determination at this time regarding necessity within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, although I suspect based on previous discussions where the individuals members will line up on this question. However, I am NOT asking that question at this time.
I will be asking our ICANN Org colleagues to send out a Doddle Poll as that makes participation / non-participation easier to track.
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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (4)
-
Marika Konings -
Michael Palage -
Stephanie E Perrin -
Volker Greimann