Hi Marika and All,
I think my concerns run to (iii) and (v) below as the limitations of certain documents (especially ones people refer to often) have definitely been a part of the discussion of this subgroup.  I would note that certain document in the summaries already contain some red highlighted notes, and I would like to request that similar notes be added *within our summary* of the Whois Review Team Final Report and within our subgroup report to the full WG. Here are the bullet points you requested (tx for asking!):

- The Whois Review Team was expressly barred from looking at the purpose of the Whois system. It was allowed to look only at ICANN's "existing policy relating to WHOIS" per the Affirmation of Commitments signed between US Department of Commerce and ICANN in 2009.

- Even within that scope, the Whois Review Team Final Report expressly recommended protection of privacy for commercial companies, noncommercial organizations and individuals (finding that each shared with us legal and legitimate reasons for privacy including as-yet-unannounced mergers, new movie names, unpopular religious, ethnic and policy views, etc).

- The Whois Review Team Final Report advised ICANN to work towards a standard of "contactability" - reaching the registrant by some means rather than all means - which we wrote as: "ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups Substantial Failure and Full Failure (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10..." p. 87.

We were tasked with conveying to the full WG our understanding of "purpose" as guided by these documents - and these notes add key insights and understandings to it (as we shared many times in presenting this Final Report to ICANN in 2012).

Best,
Kathy

On 4/24/2016 8:35 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
Kathy, all, as a reminder, each sub-team is expected to answer the
following questions in relation to the work it has undertaken:

(i) Did this input inventory produce any insights to inform the WG¹s work
plan? 
(ii) Which inputs are likely to be the most important [relevant] during WG
deliberations and why?
(iii) Which inputs, if any, generated the most discussion within the small
team? 
(iv) Which inputs may be obsolete or super-ceded by subsequent work?
(v) What input gaps, if any, may need to be addressed later?
(vi) Other key takeaways from this input inventory the team wishes to
share with the WG 


Your concern appears to fall under item v? If you would like to summarise
your concerns in a few bullets, the sub-team can maybe use these to start
building out the responses to the questions?

Best regards,

Marika

On 22/04/16 15:13, "gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org on behalf of
Kathy Kleiman" <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org on behalf of
kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:


Hi Susan and Lisa,
I have a question (which certainly does not have to be answered on a
Friday afternoon), but some deep concerns have been raised on this list
by people who helped created various documents and reports that we are
now evaluating. For example, I raised the fact that it was completely
out of scope for the Whois Review Team to evaluate the data collected in
Whois and the primary purpose for which it was created.  By the
Affirmation of Commitments, we had to deal with the Whois system as it
existed (and had been passed to ICANN from the National Science
Foundation).

We could not and did not address or deal with primary purpose. I think
this limitation and fact is critical to the understanding and evaluation
of the Whois Review Team report, especially as it applies to our
question of "purpose."

How can this point be added to Whois Review Team Final Report summary -
perhaps in Additional Information? -- and to our discussion?

Tx,
Kathy
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose