Hi Stephanie, Thanks for continuing the dialogue here. To respond to your second question, my preference and suggestion would be to narrow the gulf between the two as best we can, but to aim to take ambitious but decisive action on the RDS when it comes to protecting registrant privacy. After all, I would not wish to strike a Faustian bargain just to reach consensus. As to your first question, I would like to preface my remarks with a caveat that I am no expert here, so it is possible (if not probable!) that I need to do further reading to understand the issues at hand. If I am on the wrong track, I am happy to be pointed in a different direction. Which protocols that have been developed to process and manage data are useful and why? Which are not, and why? My understanding is that we have only four options to consider: the Extensible Provisioning Protocol, the Internet Registry Information Service Protocol, the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP), and WHOIS. Of those, I believe only RDAP and WHOIS have been deployed. Unless we can persuade the technical community that none of these are fit for purpose and thus they must create something bespoke for us (and I do not know that we can make that argument), I do not think we have much choice but to use RDAP if we find that gated access to certain data is necessary. What registration data needs to be collected, used, retained and disclosed in order to operate the DNS in a manner which ensures the security and stability of the Internet, and fair competition among provdiers, stakeholders, and contracted parties. I am going to turn here to Rob Golding’s email yesterday to the main mailing list. He indicated that the only pieces of data which are critical to the operation of the DNS are: the domain name itself, the registrar (for a gTLD with a registry/registrar model), the domain name’s expiry date, and its status (registered / not registered). For it to be of functional use, there are two optional fields: nameservers, and the auth-code (Rob suggested the auth-code was imperative, but I believe it to be a value-added feature). As we can see, the RDS does not need to collect much information at all to function. My suggestion would be that the RDS only collect that registration data which is essential to the technical operation of the DNS. This is a best practice approach to the cross-border transfer of data that the OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy has endorsed: in its primary framework, the working party says that organisations should take care to ensure that only an absolute minimum amount of information is collected, is done so with the knowledge and consent of the data subject, is used only for the stated purpose, is retained only for as long as is necessary, and is safeguarded against unauthorised access. I realise I am jumping ahead of the work plan here, but I hope you do not mind me expressing my personal view on this topic in just one sentence: that there are already some parties who rely on the WHOIS system’s public records does not mean we must continue to collect, let alone publish in an open-access directory, this information. I consider any additional data to be registrar-registrant contract information. As such, it is up to the registrar to determine how they wish to store this data, and to whom they wish to release it, in accordance with local laws and the informed consent of their customers. Who needs to have data, and under what circumstances should it be released to third party requestors? The answer to this question depends on what data elements we are talking about, the physical location of the registrar, and the physical location of the registrant. Ultimately, I would like to see due process respected. The alternative could lead us down a dangerous path which threatens to destroy the many benefits that the Internet has brought about. Who should bear the costs of data storage, and data sharing? I do not have an opinion on this question at this time. Best wishes, Ayden On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 3:39 PM, Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca wrote: Not sure whether what i wrote arrived...here is my draft additions pasted below. Perhaps it would be useful if we asked ourselves a few questions first: 1. What do we mean by problem statement? In my view, the problem statement should ask the very basic questions. * What registration data needs to be collected, used, retained and disclosed in order to operate the DNS in a manner which ensures the security and stability of the Internet, and fair competition among provdiers, stakeholders, and contracted parties. * Who needs to have data, and under what circumstances should it be released to third party requestors?. * Who should bear the costs of data storage, and data sharing? * Which protocols that have been developed to process and manage data are useful and why? Which are not, and why? 2. How do we set the rules for the RDS, in a global multi-disciplinary setting? Do we strive for a high standard, or the lowest common denominator? On 2016-06-30 9:43, Lisa Phifer wrote: Dear Problem Statement Drafting Team – A workspace page within the RDS PDP WG member wiki has now been created here: https://community.icann.org/x/rACbAw I have populated that page with a few initial links to your mailing list and etherpad, but you are free to revise and use that page in any manner you wish to collaborate with each other on this assignment. If you should have any trouble logging into the wiki or accessing the above link, just contact the GNSO secretariat ( gnso-secs@icann.org ) for wiki/mailing list support. Safe travels to you all – Lisa From: DANIEL NANGHAKA [ mailto:dndannang@gmail.com ] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:18 AM To: Lisa Phifer Cc: Shane Kerr; gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt] Etherpad for work (was: Problem Statement) Dear Lisa, Thanks for you communication. Then actually we could transfer to the Problem Statement to the wiki. we were looking for a collaborative platform where we can all edit and brainstorm and when google docs which China is not happy with came up. It was thought that etherpad can work. Otherwise I would not mind having a page created for the drafting team such that they can post. I also think that the members on this mailing list should have edit rights. Shane and all - what do you think about this? On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Lisa Phifer < lisa@corecom.com > wrote: https://community.icann.org/x/xxeOAw Regards Nanghaka Daniel K. Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Council Member - FOSSFA / Community Lead - ISOC Uganda Chapter Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) Skype: daniel.nanghaka ----------------------------------------- "Working for Africa" ----------------------------------------- ᐧ _______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt mailing list Gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pbstatement-dt Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest