Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #10 on Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC
Thanks, Marc. To respond to your comment “I’m not sure where those edits came from”, we thought it might be helpful to clarify why this proposed change was made. On several calls representatives from the RrSG have indicated that what they put forward is not necessarily a “working definition” but more like a description of what Contracted Parties are currently required to do. As such, we thought it might be better to refer to it in that way as in the question it is attributed to the RrSG. Of course, if the RrSG has no issues with it being referred to as a “working definition” we can easily make the update as you suggested below. We hope this background is helpful. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 03:45 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #10 on Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC Accuracy scoping team, Apologies for sending this so late. For question 21 in the reorganized questions to ICANN org, I don’t provide the complete text of the current definition that registrars proposed on accuracy. It has been pointed out to me by a couple of people that this loses some important context. I am suggesting edits to include the entirety of the registrar proposal. I also note that there have been some edits to my original text. I’m not sure where those edits came from but the seeming intent is to remove the word definition from the text. As I recall, on a previous call there was concern raised about calling the registrars proposed current definition of accuracy a “working definition” as that working definition might become the permanent definition. I thought registrars made it clear on that call they did not propose this as what the accuracy definition should be, but rather to capture their current understanding of accuracy obligations under the RAA. The entire text of the first charge to the scoping team in our instructions from council is: 1. Enforcement and reporting: The Scoping Team will assess the measures, including proactive measures, used by ICANN Compliance to monitor, measure, enforce and report on the accuracy obligations as specified in the Registry Agreements (RAs) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). This assessment will include consideration of what compliance with the existing contractual data accuracy obligations means. The Scoping Team shall, with reference to the resources that will be included in the index of relevant resources cited below, consider whether there is an agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations. Particular attention should be given to the definition that ICANN Compliance employs for “accuracy” in ICANN’s contracts. Note, this does not preclude any subsequent effort from formalising the definition(s) that should be applied in the context of any existing and/or new accuracy requirements that may be developed. In proposing my question, I am trying to understand the definition that ICANN Compliance employs for accuracy in ICANN’s contracts, as we have been instructed by council. I would also like to understand if ICANN compliance agrees with the current definition provided by registrars, thus the question. I don’t know how we can understand the current definition ICANN compliance employs for accuracy without using the word definition. I have added language to hopefully clarify that this is an effort to understand the current state of accuracy, not an attempt to suggest what the definition of accuracy should be. I hope that addresses concern over the use of the word definition. Updated question to ICANN org: As part of the accuracy scoping team’s effort to undertake a fact based survey of the current state of accuracy in the ICANN context, registrars proposed the following working definition of accuracy based on current contractual and consensus policy requirements (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2021-October/000086.html): Accuracy shall be strictly defined as syntactical accuracy of the registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder or Account Holder as well as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email address. To be determined to be syntactically accurate, the contact must satisfy all requirements for validity (see Whois Accuracy Program Specification Sections 1b-d). For example, for email addresses all characters must be permissible, the “@” symbol is required, and there must be characters before the “@” symbol. To be determined to be operably accurate, the contact must be operable as defined in the Whois Accuracy Program Specification Section f. The RAA currently requires validation of syntactical accuracy and verification of operational accuracy including an affirmative response from the Registered Name Holder for either email or phone. In proposing this working definition registrars are not suggesting that this is what the definition of accuracy should be, but rather capturing what it currently is to inform the work of the scoping team. The council instructions to the scoping team (https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+T...) include the following charge: 1. Enforcement and reporting: The Scoping Team will assess the measures, including proactive measures, used by ICANN Compliance to monitor, measure, enforce and report on the accuracy obligations as specified in the Registry Agreements (RAs) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). This assessment will include consideration of what compliance with the existing contractual data accuracy obligations means. The Scoping Team shall, with reference to the resources that will be included in the index of relevant resources cited below, consider whether there is an agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations. Particular attention should be given to the definition that ICANN Compliance employs for “accuracy” in ICANN’s contracts. Note, this does not preclude any subsequent effort from formalising the definition(s) that should be applied in the context of any existing and/or new accuracy requirements that may be developed. Does ICANN Compliance agree with the working definition proposed by registrars? What definition does ICANN compliance employ for “accuracy” in ICANN’s contracts? Given the above instructions from council, the scoping team is attempting to understand ICANN compliance’s definition of accuracy, and what compliance with existing contractual data accuracy obligations means to better inform our work. From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 8:27 AM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #10 on Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC. You will find attached for your review the reorganized questions for ICANN org (see agenda item #2). As discussed, we’ve aimed to group similar questions together to facilitate the development of responses. In redline you will find some edits that we are proposing to make, mainly for clarity, consistency and/or referencing. If you have any comments or concerns about this reorganization and/or proposed edits, please flag these on the mailing list in advance of the meeting. As a reminder: * Groups who have not provided inputs for the Gap Analysis (BC, GAC, ISPCP, NCSG) to do so in advance of the Team's next meeting on Thursday, 16 December. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #10 Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) * Vice-chair * Communication to Council 1. Finalize questions to ICANN org regarding enforcement and Accuracy Reporting System (10 minutes) * See cleaned up version developed by staff support team (see attached) * Scoping team input * Confirm final questions for submission to ICANN org 1. Gap Analysis (40 minutes) * Review input received from scoping team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsF...> * Scoping team input * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 23 December at 14.00 UTC)
Hello all, We are satisfied with “working definition” and support the question Marc provided in his email below. Thanks, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 From: Marika Konings Sent: December 16, 2021 2:23 AM To: Anderson, Marc; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - RegistrationData Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #10 on Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC Thanks, Marc. To respond to your comment “I’m not sure where those edits came from”, we thought it might be helpful to clarify why this proposed change was made. On several calls representatives from the RrSG have indicated that what they put forward is not necessarily a “working definition” but more like a description of what Contracted Parties are currently required to do. As such, we thought it might be better to refer to it in that way as in the question it is attributed to the RrSG. Of course, if the RrSG has no issues with it being referred to as a “working definition” we can easily make the update as you suggested below. We hope this background is helpful. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 03:45 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #10 on Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC Accuracy scoping team, Apologies for sending this so late. For question 21 in the reorganized questions to ICANN org, I don’t provide the complete text of the current definition that registrars proposed on accuracy. It has been pointed out to me by a couple of people that this loses some important context. I am suggesting edits to include the entirety of the registrar proposal. I also note that there have been some edits to my original text. I’m not sure where those edits came from but the seeming intent is to remove the word definition from the text. As I recall, on a previous call there was concern raised about calling the registrars proposed current definition of accuracy a “working definition” as that working definition might become the permanent definition. I thought registrars made it clear on that call they did not propose this as what the accuracy definition should be, but rather to capture their current understanding of accuracy obligations under the RAA. The entire text of the first charge to the scoping team in our instructions from council is: 1. Enforcement and reporting: The Scoping Team will assess the measures, including proactive measures, used by ICANN Compliance to monitor, measure, enforce and report on the accuracy obligations as specified in the Registry Agreements (RAs) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). This assessment will include consideration of what compliance with the existing contractual data accuracy obligations means. The Scoping Team shall, with reference to the resources that will be included in the index of relevant resources cited below, consider whether there is an agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations. Particular attention should be given to the definition that ICANN Compliance employs for “accuracy” in ICANN’s contracts. Note, this does not preclude any subsequent effort from formalising the definition(s) that should be applied in the context of any existing and/or new accuracy requirements that may be developed. In proposing my question, I am trying to understand the definition that ICANN Compliance employs for accuracy in ICANN’s contracts, as we have been instructed by council. I would also like to understand if ICANN compliance agrees with the current definition provided by registrars, thus the question. I don’t know how we can understand the current definition ICANN compliance employs for accuracy without using the word definition. I have added language to hopefully clarify that this is an effort to understand the current state of accuracy, not an attempt to suggest what the definition of accuracy should be. I hope that addresses concern over the use of the word definition. Updated question to ICANN org: As part of the accuracy scoping team’s effort to undertake a fact based survey of the current state of accuracy in the ICANN context, registrars proposed the following working definition of accuracy based on current contractual and consensus policy requirements (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2021-October/000086.html): Accuracy shall be strictly defined as syntactical accuracy of the registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder or Account Holder as well as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email address. To be determined to be syntactically accurate, the contact must satisfy all requirements for validity (see Whois Accuracy Program Specification Sections 1b-d). For example, for email addresses all characters must be permissible, the “@” symbol is required, and there must be characters before the “@” symbol. To be determined to be operably accurate, the contact must be operable as defined in the Whois Accuracy Program Specification Section f. The RAA currently requires validation of syntactical accuracy and verification of operational accuracy including an affirmative response from the Registered Name Holder for either email or phone. In proposing this working definition registrars are not suggesting that this is what the definition of accuracy should be, but rather capturing what it currently is to inform the work of the scoping team. The council instructions to the scoping team (https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+T...) include the following charge: 1. Enforcement and reporting: The Scoping Team will assess the measures, including proactive measures, used by ICANN Compliance to monitor, measure, enforce and report on the accuracy obligations as specified in the Registry Agreements (RAs) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). This assessment will include consideration of what compliance with the existing contractual data accuracy obligations means. The Scoping Team shall, with reference to the resources that will be included in the index of relevant resources cited below, consider whether there is an agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations. Particular attention should be given to the definition that ICANN Compliance employs for “accuracy” in ICANN’s contracts. Note, this does not preclude any subsequent effort from formalising the definition(s) that should be applied in the context of any existing and/or new accuracy requirements that may be developed. Does ICANN Compliance agree with the working definition proposed by registrars? What definition does ICANN compliance employ for “accuracy” in ICANN’s contracts? Given the above instructions from council, the scoping team is attempting to understand ICANN compliance’s definition of accuracy, and what compliance with existing contractual data accuracy obligations means to better inform our work. From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 8:27 AM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #10 on Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC. You will find attached for your review the reorganized questions for ICANN org (see agenda item #2). As discussed, we’ve aimed to group similar questions together to facilitate the development of responses. In redline you will find some edits that we are proposing to make, mainly for clarity, consistency and/or referencing. If you have any comments or concerns about this reorganization and/or proposed edits, please flag these on the mailing list in advance of the meeting. As a reminder: • Groups who have not provided inputs for the Gap Analysis (BC, GAC, ISPCP, NCSG) to do so in advance of the Team's next meeting on Thursday, 16 December. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #10 Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) a. Vice-chair b. Communication to Council 2. Finalize questions to ICANN org regarding enforcement and Accuracy Reporting System (10 minutes) a. See cleaned up version developed by staff support team (see attached) b. Scoping team input c. Confirm final questions for submission to ICANN org 3. Gap Analysis (40 minutes) a. Review input received from scoping team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit [docs.google.com] b. Scoping team input c. Confirm next steps 4. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 23 December at 14.00 UTC)
Hello all, We are satisfied with “working definition” and support the question Marc provided in his email below. Thanks, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 From: Marika Konings Sent: December 16, 2021 2:23 AM To: Anderson, Marc; gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - RegistrationData Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #10 on Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC Thanks, Marc. To respond to your comment “I’m not sure where those edits came from”, we thought it might be helpful to clarify why this proposed change was made. On several calls representatives from the RrSG have indicated that what they put forward is not necessarily a “working definition” but more like a description of what Contracted Parties are currently required to do. As such, we thought it might be better to refer to it in that way as in the question it is attributed to the RrSG. Of course, if the RrSG has no issues with it being referred to as a “working definition” we can easily make the update as you suggested below. We hope this background is helpful. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 03:45 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #10 on Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC Accuracy scoping team, Apologies for sending this so late. For question 21 in the reorganized questions to ICANN org, I don’t provide the complete text of the current definition that registrars proposed on accuracy. It has been pointed out to me by a couple of people that this loses some important context. I am suggesting edits to include the entirety of the registrar proposal. I also note that there have been some edits to my original text. I’m not sure where those edits came from but the seeming intent is to remove the word definition from the text. As I recall, on a previous call there was concern raised about calling the registrars proposed current definition of accuracy a “working definition” as that working definition might become the permanent definition. I thought registrars made it clear on that call they did not propose this as what the accuracy definition should be, but rather to capture their current understanding of accuracy obligations under the RAA. The entire text of the first charge to the scoping team in our instructions from council is: 1. Enforcement and reporting: The Scoping Team will assess the measures, including proactive measures, used by ICANN Compliance to monitor, measure, enforce and report on the accuracy obligations as specified in the Registry Agreements (RAs) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). This assessment will include consideration of what compliance with the existing contractual data accuracy obligations means. The Scoping Team shall, with reference to the resources that will be included in the index of relevant resources cited below, consider whether there is an agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations. Particular attention should be given to the definition that ICANN Compliance employs for “accuracy” in ICANN’s contracts. Note, this does not preclude any subsequent effort from formalising the definition(s) that should be applied in the context of any existing and/or new accuracy requirements that may be developed. In proposing my question, I am trying to understand the definition that ICANN Compliance employs for accuracy in ICANN’s contracts, as we have been instructed by council. I would also like to understand if ICANN compliance agrees with the current definition provided by registrars, thus the question. I don’t know how we can understand the current definition ICANN compliance employs for accuracy without using the word definition. I have added language to hopefully clarify that this is an effort to understand the current state of accuracy, not an attempt to suggest what the definition of accuracy should be. I hope that addresses concern over the use of the word definition. Updated question to ICANN org: As part of the accuracy scoping team’s effort to undertake a fact based survey of the current state of accuracy in the ICANN context, registrars proposed the following working definition of accuracy based on current contractual and consensus policy requirements (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/2021-October/000086.html): Accuracy shall be strictly defined as syntactical accuracy of the registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder or Account Holder as well as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email address. To be determined to be syntactically accurate, the contact must satisfy all requirements for validity (see Whois Accuracy Program Specification Sections 1b-d). For example, for email addresses all characters must be permissible, the “@” symbol is required, and there must be characters before the “@” symbol. To be determined to be operably accurate, the contact must be operable as defined in the Whois Accuracy Program Specification Section f. The RAA currently requires validation of syntactical accuracy and verification of operational accuracy including an affirmative response from the Registered Name Holder for either email or phone. In proposing this working definition registrars are not suggesting that this is what the definition of accuracy should be, but rather capturing what it currently is to inform the work of the scoping team. The council instructions to the scoping team (https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+T...) include the following charge: 1. Enforcement and reporting: The Scoping Team will assess the measures, including proactive measures, used by ICANN Compliance to monitor, measure, enforce and report on the accuracy obligations as specified in the Registry Agreements (RAs) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). This assessment will include consideration of what compliance with the existing contractual data accuracy obligations means. The Scoping Team shall, with reference to the resources that will be included in the index of relevant resources cited below, consider whether there is an agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations. Particular attention should be given to the definition that ICANN Compliance employs for “accuracy” in ICANN’s contracts. Note, this does not preclude any subsequent effort from formalising the definition(s) that should be applied in the context of any existing and/or new accuracy requirements that may be developed. Does ICANN Compliance agree with the working definition proposed by registrars? What definition does ICANN compliance employ for “accuracy” in ICANN’s contracts? Given the above instructions from council, the scoping team is attempting to understand ICANN compliance’s definition of accuracy, and what compliance with existing contractual data accuracy obligations means to better inform our work. From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 8:27 AM To: gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Proposed Agenda - Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting #10 on Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC. You will find attached for your review the reorganized questions for ICANN org (see agenda item #2). As discussed, we’ve aimed to group similar questions together to facilitate the development of responses. In redline you will find some edits that we are proposing to make, mainly for clarity, consistency and/or referencing. If you have any comments or concerns about this reorganization and/or proposed edits, please flag these on the mailing list in advance of the meeting. As a reminder: • Groups who have not provided inputs for the Gap Analysis (BC, GAC, ISPCP, NCSG) to do so in advance of the Team's next meeting on Thursday, 16 December. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #10 Thursday 16 December at 13.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) a. Vice-chair b. Communication to Council 2. Finalize questions to ICANN org regarding enforcement and Accuracy Reporting System (10 minutes) a. See cleaned up version developed by staff support team (see attached) b. Scoping team input c. Confirm final questions for submission to ICANN org 3. Gap Analysis (40 minutes) a. Review input received from scoping team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit [docs.google.com] b. Scoping team input c. Confirm next steps 4. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 23 December at 14.00 UTC)
participants (2)
-
Marika Konings -
Sarah Wyld