Notes and action items - RDA Scoping Team Meeting #11 - 23 December 2021
Dear RDA Scoping Team Members, Please find below the notes and action items from the last meeting on Thursday, December 23 at 14:00 UTC. Happy New Year to all! Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items 1. GAC Representatives to come prepared to answer questions raised during the meeting on Thursday, 23 December. 2. Question for ICANN org: Is the list provided at this link (https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used) still relevant? 3. STILL OUTSTANDING: Groups who have not provided input for the Gap Analysis (ISPCP, NCSG, SSAC) to do so ASAP or inform Leadership if their group does not intend to do so. Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #11 Thursday 23 December at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) * Status of questions to ICANN org * Questions have been transmitted to the appropriate subject matter experts, including compliance, legal, etc. Org will endeavor to provide responses to questions by 13 January (the second scoping team meeting in the new year). * Vice-chair appointment – any further input? * In response to Marc A’s message, Rafik served as vice chair and GNSO Council liaison during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Additionally, the role of chair for this scoping team was not heavily sought after. Unlike EPDP Phase 1 and 2, which delivered binding policy recommendations, this group will not. * Response: With respect to Rafik as vice-chair in EPDP, others had concerns with that also, particularly because Rafik ultimately had to step into the role of chair, and it’s not ideal to wear the hats of chair and liaison simultaneously. There are other options the group should consider, including requesting a vice chair from the GNSO Council. 1. Gap Analysis (50 minutes) * Continue review of 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/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit__;!!PtGJab4!ome3kaoSrFqyTp3jQrNfsZ37N-C-TJ7VMAthKmqvTP8is9oe2FRXl4E4lvUwBJulwWvMHWkBbow$> * ALAC Gap Analysis: * The current goal of accuracy is the one embodied in the RAA, and this has a long history associated with it. The goal going into the discussion of the accuracy specification is to improve accuracy. Both the NORC and the accuracy study showed there was a significant accuracy issue that needed to be fixed. * The RAA is a bilateral negotiation between ICANN and registrars, and what came out of it was – “we agree to do some, but not all”. For example, the AFAV requirements have still not been implemented. * This is only a partial solution, and the original goal was not met, and the requirements detailed in the Whois Accuracy Spec are still not being enforced today. * In terms of the goals that were not met, could ALAC articulate the goals that were laid out and not met? * To make something accurate, is to make something useful and facilitate contact. Some level of verification that this will facilitate contact should be required. * Concerned about claims of no accuracy, while the WAPS did provide improvements. * Indeed, there was an improvement with the introduction of the WAPS. By way of example of something the WAPS did not do: registrars are required to verify either the phone or email address, but there is no flag added to RDDS to indicate which field was ultimately verified/usable. * Dispute that the WAPS was not effective; if you were to review the ARS reports, it showed accuracy levels significantly improve. Over 90% of domain names were contactable by at least one field (phone, email, postal address), and a majority were contactable in all three. Adding a flag in the RDDS would be a gargantuan task and a large expense. * Did not say that the WAPS was not effective at doing something. Believe for 70-80% of domain names at least one field that was not accurate. While 95% of names had an accurate field, it was unclear to others which field was actually accurate. Understand that information is maintained in terms of which field was actually verified. * The primary goal of this group is to gather objective facts. Could Rys or Rrs document changes to their systems, for example, the Chinese real name verification – could CPs give an idea of the magnitude of what was done for these changing requirements? This could be helpful for the Council to make an informed determination. * Request to put specific questions to stakeholder groups in writing. When it comes to costing, it is very unlikely that registries will share costing. * The 2013 RAA is almost 9 years old, and the cybercrime world has changed very significantly since 2013. * The RAA requires all contact details to be validated at some degree. * Believe that this verification should be done by an external body. * GAC Gap Analysis<https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit>: read into the record * May be worth more follow-up when GAC colleagues have returned – the goal in the group’s charter is to fully capture the current state. It’s difficult to go forward with work without a firm understanding of what accuracy is. This is a red flag that requires further work – the group should be convinced of what the current state is. * The purposes for processing listed here is not the same as the EPDP Phase 1 approved purposes * Question to ICANN org – Is the list provided at this link (https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used) still relevant? * Citing SAC 058, which predates the 2013 RAA, may not be relevant anymore. * Any study that samples data, whether a SAC report or another report, raises the question of what it looks like today. Perhaps putting forward a nomenclature for accuracy, whether it is recognized as coming from this paper or not, would be helpful. * The question the scoping team should ask – whether this is being met, rather than it is unclear that it is being met. Need to look at this from a perspective: it is not being met, and here is the evidence to show this. Or, there is nothing showing it is not being met. It’s easier to prove a positive rather than a negative. * A significant part of ICANN’s ability to check accuracy, except on a case-by-case complaint basis, is that ICANN does not have access to the data. * 7.3.2 of the RAA – registrars shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations – the only time this was seen by ICANN is when registrars would say that something could not be done because it was prohibited by local law * Can GAC reps please explain what they mean by “a more holistic interpretation of the RAA”? * Without looking at new data, cannot verify that this conjecture is correct * Where numbers are cited, the source should also be cited. * Call into question the InterIsle numbers * The claim that there is a large amount of data that is not validated is simply incorrect. Would like to see numbers that showcase an interest in domain name registered more than ten years ago. * Next steps: With respect to the first part of the Gap Analysis, specifically questions 1 and 2, the ways in which data can or should be gathered to demonstrate whether or not certain requirements are being met. Some have claimed CPs should provide data, some said ICANN org or a third party should obtain the data. Through some of this data gathering, the team already receive information that could inform 3 and 4. * Scoping team input * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 6 January at 14.00 UTC)
Caitlin, Thanks for your note. SSAC's contribution to the gap analysis was submitted many days ago, so I'm puzzled that you say it hasn't been submitted. I've also been thinking about gaps in a somewhat broader sense. The attached Gap Roster is for the group to consider. It's intended to be a repository for all of the gaps, issues, etc. We're going to put this into Google docs so the community can contribute on a continuous basis. An immediate next step is to make sure each of the questions, issues, etc. in your note are included. A few more words about the gap roster. I'm using "gap" in broadly than usual. A lot of the same issues keep coming up, not only within the Accuracy Scoping Team discussions but throughout the entire registration data directory system policy development process. Rather than attempting to resolve the various long-standing issues, I think it will be helpful to everyone to keep track of and document the long-standing differences in objectives. Gaps of this sort are not going to be resolved by the constrained processes we're engaged in. Nonetheless, I think it's important to be forthright about the unresolved issues instead of trying to rule them out of order. Not all of the gaps are large and sticky. Some are much smaller and more likely to be resolved. The ground rules for this roster are to focus on content, not the motives of others, and to keep the descriptions concise. Include pointers to supporting or lengthier material if needed. We will curate to merge duplicates but not to lose important distinctions, and to keep it tight and manageable. The goal is to keep the larger issues in view while being clear about which issues are resolved and which ones will continue to be outstanding. Thanks, Steve On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 6:22 AM Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RDA Scoping Team Members,
Please find below the notes and action items from the last meeting on Thursday, December 23 at 14:00 UTC.
Happy New Year to all!
Best regards,
Marika, Berry, and Caitlin
--
*Action Items*
1. GAC Representatives to come prepared to answer questions raised during the meeting on Thursday, 23 December. 2. Question for ICANN org: Is the list provided at this link ( https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used) still relevant? 3. STILL OUTSTANDING: Groups who have not provided input for the Gap Analysis (ISPCP, NCSG, SSAC) to do so ASAP or inform Leadership if their group does not intend to do so.
*Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #11*
Thursday 23 December at 14.00 UTC
1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 1. Status of questions to ICANN org - Questions have been transmitted to the appropriate subject matter experts, including compliance, legal, etc. Org will endeavor to provide responses to questions by 13 January (the second scoping team meeting in the new year). 2. Vice-chair appointment – any further input? - In response to Marc A’s message, Rafik served as vice chair and GNSO Council liaison during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Additionally, the role of chair for this scoping team was not heavily sought after. Unlike EPDP Phase 1 and 2, which delivered binding policy recommendations, this group will not. - Response: With respect to Rafik as vice-chair in EPDP, others had concerns with that also, particularly because Rafik ultimately had to step into the role of chair, and it’s not ideal to wear the hats of chair and liaison simultaneously. There are other options the group should consider, including requesting a vice chair from the GNSO Council.
1. Gap Analysis (50 minutes) 1. Continue review of 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...>
- ALAC Gap Analysis: - The current goal of accuracy is the one embodied in the RAA, and this has a long history associated with it. The goal going into the discussion of the accuracy specification is to improve accuracy. Both the NORC and the accuracy study showed there was a significant accuracy issue that needed to be fixed. - The RAA is a bilateral negotiation between ICANN and registrars, and what came out of it was – “we agree to do some, but not all”. For example, the AFAV requirements have still not been implemented. - This is only a partial solution, and the original goal was not met, and the requirements detailed in the Whois Accuracy Spec are still not being enforced today. - In terms of the goals that were not met, could ALAC articulate the goals that were laid out and not met? - To make something accurate, is to make something useful and facilitate contact. Some level of verification that this will facilitate contact should be required. - Concerned about claims of no accuracy, while the WAPS did provide improvements. - Indeed, there was an improvement with the introduction of the WAPS. By way of example of something the WAPS did not do: registrars are required to verify either the phone or email address, but there is no flag added to RDDS to indicate which field was ultimately verified/usable. - Dispute that the WAPS was not effective; if you were to review the ARS reports, it showed accuracy levels significantly improve. Over 90% of domain names were contactable by at least one field (phone, email, postal address), and a majority were contactable in all three. Adding a flag in the RDDS would be a gargantuan task and a large expense. - Did not say that the WAPS was not effective at doing something. Believe for 70-80% of domain names at least one field that was not accurate. While 95% of names had an accurate field, it was unclear to others which field was actually accurate. Understand that information is maintained in terms of which field was actually verified. - The primary goal of this group is to gather objective facts. Could Rys or Rrs document changes to their systems, for example, the Chinese real name verification – could CPs give an idea of the magnitude of what was done for these changing requirements? This could be helpful for the Council to make an informed determination. - Request to put specific questions to stakeholder groups in writing. When it comes to costing, it is very unlikely that registries will share costing. - The 2013 RAA is almost 9 years old, and the cybercrime world has changed very significantly since 2013. - The RAA requires all contact details to be validated at some degree. - Believe that this verification should be done by an external body. - GAC Gap Analysis <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit>: read into the record - May be worth more follow-up when GAC colleagues have returned – the goal in the group’s charter is to fully capture the current state. It’s difficult to go forward with work without a firm understanding of what accuracy is. This is a red flag that requires further work – the group should be convinced of what the current state is. - The purposes for processing listed here is not the same as the EPDP Phase 1 approved purposes - Question to ICANN org – Is the list provided at this link ( https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used) still relevant? - Citing SAC 058, which predates the 2013 RAA, may not be relevant anymore. - Any study that samples data, whether a SAC report or another report, raises the question of what it looks like today. Perhaps putting forward a nomenclature for accuracy, whether it is recognized as coming from this paper or not, would be helpful. - The question the scoping team should ask – whether this is being met, rather than it is unclear that it is being met. Need to look at this from a perspective: it is not being met, and here is the evidence to show this. Or, there is nothing showing it is not being met. It’s easier to prove a positive rather than a negative. - A significant part of ICANN’s ability to check accuracy, except on a case-by-case complaint basis, is that ICANN does not have access to the data. - 7.3.2 of the RAA – registrars shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations – the only time this was seen by ICANN is when registrars would say that something could not be done because it was prohibited by local law - Can GAC reps please explain what they mean by “a more holistic interpretation of the RAA”? - Without looking at new data, cannot verify that this conjecture is correct - Where numbers are cited, the source should also be cited. - Call into question the InterIsle numbers - The claim that there is a large amount of data that is not validated is simply incorrect. Would like to see numbers that showcase an interest in domain name registered more than ten years ago. - Next steps: With respect to the first part of the Gap Analysis, specifically questions 1 and 2, the ways in which data can or should be gathered to demonstrate whether or not certain requirements are being met. Some have claimed CPs should provide data, some said ICANN org or a third party should obtain the data. Through some of this data gathering, the team already receive information that could inform 3 and 4.
1. Scoping team input 2. Confirm next steps
1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 6 January at 14.00 UTC)
_______________________________________________ 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.
My apologies, Steve. The outstanding action is for ISPCP, NCSG, and BC. As you noted, SSAC has already submitted its gap analysis. Kind regards, Caitlin From: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 at 8:52 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org>, "steve@shinkuro.com" <steve@shinkuro.com> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Notes and action items - RDA Scoping Team Meeting #11 - 23 December 2021 Caitlin, Thanks for your note. SSAC's contribution to the gap analysis was submitted many days ago, so I'm puzzled that you say it hasn't been submitted. I've also been thinking about gaps in a somewhat broader sense. The attached Gap Roster is for the group to consider. It's intended to be a repository for all of the gaps, issues, etc. We're going to put this into Google docs so the community can contribute on a continuous basis. An immediate next step is to make sure each of the questions, issues, etc. in your note are included. A few more words about the gap roster. I'm using "gap" in broadly than usual. A lot of the same issues keep coming up, not only within the Accuracy Scoping Team discussions but throughout the entire registration data directory system policy development process. Rather than attempting to resolve the various long-standing issues, I think it will be helpful to everyone to keep track of and document the long-standing differences in objectives. Gaps of this sort are not going to be resolved by the constrained processes we're engaged in. Nonetheless, I think it's important to be forthright about the unresolved issues instead of trying to rule them out of order. Not all of the gaps are large and sticky. Some are much smaller and more likely to be resolved. The ground rules for this roster are to focus on content, not the motives of others, and to keep the descriptions concise. Include pointers to supporting or lengthier material if needed. We will curate to merge duplicates but not to lose important distinctions, and to keep it tight and manageable. The goal is to keep the larger issues in view while being clear about which issues are resolved and which ones will continue to be outstanding. Thanks, Steve On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 6:22 AM Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: Dear RDA Scoping Team Members, Please find below the notes and action items from the last meeting on Thursday, December 23 at 14:00 UTC. Happy New Year to all! Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items 1. GAC Representatives to come prepared to answer questions raised during the meeting on Thursday, 23 December. 2. Question for ICANN org: Is the list provided at this link (https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used [whois.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data...>) still relevant? 3. STILL OUTSTANDING: Groups who have not provided input for the Gap Analysis (ISPCP, NCSG, SSAC) to do so ASAP or inform Leadership if their group does not intend to do so. Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #11 Thursday 23 December at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) * Status of questions to ICANN org * Questions have been transmitted to the appropriate subject matter experts, including compliance, legal, etc. Org will endeavor to provide responses to questions by 13 January (the second scoping team meeting in the new year). * Vice-chair appointment – any further input? * In response to Marc A’s message, Rafik served as vice chair and GNSO Council liaison during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Additionally, the role of chair for this scoping team was not heavily sought after. Unlike EPDP Phase 1 and 2, which delivered binding policy recommendations, this group will not. * Response: With respect to Rafik as vice-chair in EPDP, others had concerns with that also, particularly because Rafik ultimately had to step into the role of chair, and it’s not ideal to wear the hats of chair and liaison simultaneously. There are other options the group should consider, including requesting a vice chair from the GNSO Council. 1. Gap Analysis (50 minutes) * Continue review of 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/11msexuoqWSUsFj8ZjVvWF-XHpcMJntWH/edit__;!!PtGJab4!ome3kaoSrFqyTp3jQrNfsZ37N-C-TJ7VMAthKmqvTP8is9oe2FRXl4E4lvUwBJulwWvMHWkBbow$> * ALAC Gap Analysis: * The current goal of accuracy is the one embodied in the RAA, and this has a long history associated with it. The goal going into the discussion of the accuracy specification is to improve accuracy. Both the NORC and the accuracy study showed there was a significant accuracy issue that needed to be fixed. * The RAA is a bilateral negotiation between ICANN and registrars, and what came out of it was – “we agree to do some, but not all”. For example, the AFAV requirements have still not been implemented. * This is only a partial solution, and the original goal was not met, and the requirements detailed in the Whois Accuracy Spec are still not being enforced today. * In terms of the goals that were not met, could ALAC articulate the goals that were laid out and not met? * To make something accurate, is to make something useful and facilitate contact. Some level of verification that this will facilitate contact should be required. * Concerned about claims of no accuracy, while the WAPS did provide improvements. * Indeed, there was an improvement with the introduction of the WAPS. By way of example of something the WAPS did not do: registrars are required to verify either the phone or email address, but there is no flag added to RDDS to indicate which field was ultimately verified/usable. * Dispute that the WAPS was not effective; if you were to review the ARS reports, it showed accuracy levels significantly improve. Over 90% of domain names were contactable by at least one field (phone, email, postal address), and a majority were contactable in all three. Adding a flag in the RDDS would be a gargantuan task and a large expense. * Did not say that the WAPS was not effective at doing something. Believe for 70-80% of domain names at least one field that was not accurate. While 95% of names had an accurate field, it was unclear to others which field was actually accurate. Understand that information is maintained in terms of which field was actually verified. * The primary goal of this group is to gather objective facts. Could Rys or Rrs document changes to their systems, for example, the Chinese real name verification – could CPs give an idea of the magnitude of what was done for these changing requirements? This could be helpful for the Council to make an informed determination. * Request to put specific questions to stakeholder groups in writing. When it comes to costing, it is very unlikely that registries will share costing. * The 2013 RAA is almost 9 years old, and the cybercrime world has changed very significantly since 2013. * The RAA requires all contact details to be validated at some degree. * Believe that this verification should be done by an external body. * GAC Gap Analysis [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsF...>: read into the record * May be worth more follow-up when GAC colleagues have returned – the goal in the group’s charter is to fully capture the current state. It’s difficult to go forward with work without a firm understanding of what accuracy is. This is a red flag that requires further work – the group should be convinced of what the current state is. * The purposes for processing listed here is not the same as the EPDP Phase 1 approved purposes * Question to ICANN org – Is the list provided at this link (https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used [whois.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data...>) still relevant? * Citing SAC 058, which predates the 2013 RAA, may not be relevant anymore. * Any study that samples data, whether a SAC report or another report, raises the question of what it looks like today. Perhaps putting forward a nomenclature for accuracy, whether it is recognized as coming from this paper or not, would be helpful. * The question the scoping team should ask – whether this is being met, rather than it is unclear that it is being met. Need to look at this from a perspective: it is not being met, and here is the evidence to show this. Or, there is nothing showing it is not being met. It’s easier to prove a positive rather than a negative. * A significant part of ICANN’s ability to check accuracy, except on a case-by-case complaint basis, is that ICANN does not have access to the data. * 7.3.2 of the RAA – registrars shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations – the only time this was seen by ICANN is when registrars would say that something could not be done because it was prohibited by local law * Can GAC reps please explain what they mean by “a more holistic interpretation of the RAA”? * Without looking at new data, cannot verify that this conjecture is correct * Where numbers are cited, the source should also be cited. * Call into question the InterIsle numbers * The claim that there is a large amount of data that is not validated is simply incorrect. Would like to see numbers that showcase an interest in domain name registered more than ten years ago. * Next steps: With respect to the first part of the Gap Analysis, specifically questions 1 and 2, the ways in which data can or should be gathered to demonstrate whether or not certain requirements are being met. Some have claimed CPs should provide data, some said ICANN org or a third party should obtain the data. Through some of this data gathering, the team already receive information that could inform 3 and 4. * Scoping team input * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 6 January at 14.00 UTC) _______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks! Steve On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 7:01 AM Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:
My apologies, Steve.
The outstanding action is for *ISPCP, NCSG, and BC*. As you noted, SSAC has already submitted its gap analysis.
Kind regards,
Caitlin
*From: *Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> *Date: *Monday, January 3, 2022 at 8:52 AM *To: *Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st@icann.org>, " steve@shinkuro.com" <steve@shinkuro.com> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Notes and action items - RDA Scoping Team Meeting #11 - 23 December 2021
Caitlin,
Thanks for your note. SSAC's contribution to the gap analysis was submitted many days ago, so I'm puzzled that you say it hasn't been submitted.
I've also been thinking about gaps in a somewhat broader sense. The attached Gap Roster is for the group to consider. It's intended to be a repository for all of the gaps, issues, etc. We're going to put this into Google docs so the community can contribute on a continuous basis. An immediate next step is to make sure each of the questions, issues, etc. in your note are included.
A few more words about the gap roster. I'm using "gap" in broadly than usual. A lot of the same issues keep coming up, not only within the Accuracy Scoping Team discussions but throughout the entire registration data directory system policy development process.
Rather than attempting to resolve the various long-standing issues, I think it will be helpful to everyone to keep track of and document the long-standing differences in objectives. Gaps of this sort are not going to be resolved by the constrained processes we're engaged in. Nonetheless, I think it's important to be forthright about the unresolved issues instead of trying to rule them out of order.
Not all of the gaps are large and sticky. Some are much smaller and more likely to be resolved.
The ground rules for this roster are to focus on content, not the motives of others, and to keep the descriptions concise. Include pointers to supporting or lengthier material if needed. We will curate to merge duplicates but not to lose important distinctions, and to keep it tight and manageable.
The goal is to keep the larger issues in view while being clear about which issues are resolved and which ones will continue to be outstanding.
Thanks,
Steve
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 6:22 AM Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RDA Scoping Team Members,
Please find below the notes and action items from the last meeting on Thursday, December 23 at 14:00 UTC.
Happy New Year to all!
Best regards,
Marika, Berry, and Caitlin
--
*Action Items*
1. GAC Representatives to come prepared to answer questions raised during the meeting on Thursday, 23 December. 2. Question for ICANN org: Is the list provided at this link (https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used [whois.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data...>) still relevant? 3. STILL OUTSTANDING: Groups who have not provided input for the Gap Analysis (ISPCP, NCSG, SSAC) to do so ASAP or inform Leadership if their group does not intend to do so.
*Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #11*
Thursday 23 December at 14.00 UTC
1. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes)
1. Status of questions to ICANN org
- Questions have been transmitted to the appropriate subject matter experts, including compliance, legal, etc. Org will endeavor to provide responses to questions by 13 January (the second scoping team meeting in the new year).
1. Vice-chair appointment – any further input?
- In response to Marc A’s message, Rafik served as vice chair and GNSO Council liaison during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Additionally, the role of chair for this scoping team was not heavily sought after. Unlike EPDP Phase 1 and 2, which delivered binding policy recommendations, this group will not. - Response: With respect to Rafik as vice-chair in EPDP, others had concerns with that also, particularly because Rafik ultimately had to step into the role of chair, and it’s not ideal to wear the hats of chair and liaison simultaneously. There are other options the group should consider, including requesting a vice chair from the GNSO Council.
1. Gap Analysis (50 minutes)
1. Continue review of 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...>
- ALAC Gap Analysis: - The current goal of accuracy is the one embodied in the RAA, and this has a long history associated with it. The goal going into the discussion of the accuracy specification is to improve accuracy. Both the NORC and the accuracy study showed there was a significant accuracy issue that needed to be fixed. - The RAA is a bilateral negotiation between ICANN and registrars, and what came out of it was – “we agree to do some, but not all”. For example, the AFAV requirements have still not been implemented. - This is only a partial solution, and the original goal was not met, and the requirements detailed in the Whois Accuracy Spec are still not being enforced today. - In terms of the goals that were not met, could ALAC articulate the goals that were laid out and not met? - To make something accurate, is to make something useful and facilitate contact. Some level of verification that this will facilitate contact should be required. - Concerned about claims of no accuracy, while the WAPS did provide improvements. - Indeed, there was an improvement with the introduction of the WAPS. By way of example of something the WAPS did not do: registrars are required to verify either the phone or email address, but there is no flag added to RDDS to indicate which field was ultimately verified/usable. - Dispute that the WAPS was not effective; if you were to review the ARS reports, it showed accuracy levels significantly improve. Over 90% of domain names were contactable by at least one field (phone, email, postal address), and a majority were contactable in all three. Adding a flag in the RDDS would be a gargantuan task and a large expense. - Did not say that the WAPS was not effective at doing something. Believe for 70-80% of domain names at least one field that was not accurate. While 95% of names had an accurate field, it was unclear to others which field was actually accurate. Understand that information is maintained in terms of which field was actually verified. - The primary goal of this group is to gather objective facts. Could Rys or Rrs document changes to their systems, for example, the Chinese real name verification – could CPs give an idea of the magnitude of what was done for these changing requirements? This could be helpful for the Council to make an informed determination. - Request to put specific questions to stakeholder groups in writing. When it comes to costing, it is very unlikely that registries will share costing. - The 2013 RAA is almost 9 years old, and the cybercrime world has changed very significantly since 2013. - The RAA requires all contact details to be validated at some degree. - Believe that this verification should be done by an external body. - GAC Gap Analysis [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUsF...>: read into the record - May be worth more follow-up when GAC colleagues have returned – the goal in the group’s charter is to fully capture the current state. It’s difficult to go forward with work without a firm understanding of what accuracy is. This is a red flag that requires further work – the group should be convinced of what the current state is. - The purposes for processing listed here is not the same as the EPDP Phase 1 approved purposes - Question to ICANN org – Is the list provided at this link ( https://whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data-used [whois.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/whois.icann.org/en/what-registration-data...>) still relevant? - Citing SAC 058, which predates the 2013 RAA, may not be relevant anymore. - Any study that samples data, whether a SAC report or another report, raises the question of what it looks like today. Perhaps putting forward a nomenclature for accuracy, whether it is recognized as coming from this paper or not, would be helpful. - The question the scoping team should ask – whether this is being met, rather than it is unclear that it is being met. Need to look at this from a perspective: it is not being met, and here is the evidence to show this. Or, there is nothing showing it is not being met. It’s easier to prove a positive rather than a negative. - A significant part of ICANN’s ability to check accuracy, except on a case-by-case complaint basis, is that ICANN does not have access to the data. - 7.3.2 of the RAA – registrars shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations – the only time this was seen by ICANN is when registrars would say that something could not be done because it was prohibited by local law - Can GAC reps please explain what they mean by “a more holistic interpretation of the RAA”? - Without looking at new data, cannot verify that this conjecture is correct - Where numbers are cited, the source should also be cited. - Call into question the InterIsle numbers - The claim that there is a large amount of data that is not validated is simply incorrect. Would like to see numbers that showcase an interest in domain name registered more than ten years ago. - Next steps: With respect to the first part of the Gap Analysis, specifically questions 1 and 2, the ways in which data can or should be gathered to demonstrate whether or not certain requirements are being met. Some have claimed CPs should provide data, some said ICANN org or a third party should obtain the data. Through some of this data gathering, the team already receive information that could inform 3 and 4.
1. Scoping team input 2. Confirm next steps
1. Confirm action items & next meeting (Thursday 6 January at 14.00 UTC)
_______________________________________________ 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 (2)
-
Caitlin Tubergen -
Steve Crocker