Additional Information/question
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
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
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
...and FWIW, the Review Team's final report was a very important substrate upon which the EWG's work was advanced. The EWG spent an inordinate amount of time resolving the question as to whether there was a purposeful need for registration data and if so, what should be collected, the standards for collection, how it should be curated and the safeguards, why and how it should be published and the mechanisms for publication. I say again, it would be a sign of malignancy to embrace any attempt to bounce the rubble here. If there is new and original insight of value to the end game, let it be heard. Otherwise, enough good minds and treasure are exhausted answering those questions. Lets get on with it. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
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.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kathy@kathykleiman.com> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@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 listgnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
I would actually disagree. We discussed the use cases for data, accepting those current uses as by and large legitimate. From a data protection perspective, it has been clear from the very beginning that many of the new purposes that registrant data were being put to, would not be permissible by law under the original purpose of WHOIS. We never looked at the collection instrument, (RAA) it was accepted as fait accompli. We did not go over the extensive collection of documents that we had received from the DPAs. So a thorough, tabula rasa discussion of the purpose of collection of registrant data is in order, in my view. And SAC 055 agrees with that view. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-04-25 17:34, Carlton Samuels wrote:
...and FWIW, the Review Team's final report was a very important substrate upon which the EWG's work was advanced.
The EWG spent an inordinate amount of time resolving the question as to whether there was a purposeful need for registration data and if so, what should be collected, the standards for collection, how it should be curated and the safeguards, why and how it should be published and the mechanisms for publication.
I say again, it would be a sign of malignancy to embrace any attempt to bounce the rubble here. If there is new and original insight of value to the end game, let it be heard.
Otherwise, enough good minds and treasure are exhausted answering those questions.
Lets get on with it.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
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" <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kathy@kathykleiman.com> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@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 <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose
Hi Stephanie, I disagree that we accepted the RAA as fait accompli. I think the whole EWG team spent many hours discussing any view point in reference to registration data purpose, collection and display. We also reviewed any document that was brought to our attention from DPA’s or Article 29 WP. We may not have agreed on the interpretation and meaning of those documents but we discussed data collection and privacy more than any other topic since it was so crucial to our work. Best, Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question I would actually disagree. We discussed the use cases for data, accepting those current uses as by and large legitimate. From a data protection perspective, it has been clear from the very beginning that many of the new purposes that registrant data were being put to, would not be permissible by law under the original purpose of WHOIS. We never looked at the collection instrument, (RAA) it was accepted as fait accompli. We did not go over the extensive collection of documents that we had received from the DPAs. So a thorough, tabula rasa discussion of the purpose of collection of registrant data is in order, in my view. And SAC 055 agrees with that view. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-04-25 17:34, Carlton Samuels wrote: ...and FWIW, the Review Team's final report was a very important substrate upon which the EWG's work was advanced. The EWG spent an inordinate amount of time resolving the question as to whether there was a purposeful need for registration data and if so, what should be collected, the standards for collection, how it should be curated and the safeguards, why and how it should be published and the mechanisms for publication. I say again, it would be a sign of malignancy to embrace any attempt to bounce the rubble here. If there is new and original insight of value to the end game, let it be heard. Otherwise, enough good minds and treasure are exhausted answering those questions. Lets get on with it. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: 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"<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@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<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=>
With regard to the RAA as well as registry agreements with gTLD registries, one of the possible outcomes of this WG is the recommendation of consensus policies. As I think many of you know, gTLD registries and registrars are required in their agreements to implement consensus policies approved by the Board so the consensus policies would become a requirement in the applicable agreements. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:01 PM To: Stephanie Perrin; gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question Hi Stephanie, I disagree that we accepted the RAA as fait accompli. I think the whole EWG team spent many hours discussing any view point in reference to registration data purpose, collection and display. We also reviewed any document that was brought to our attention from DPA's or Article 29 WP. We may not have agreed on the interpretation and meaning of those documents but we discussed data collection and privacy more than any other topic since it was so crucial to our work. Best, Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question I would actually disagree. We discussed the use cases for data, accepting those current uses as by and large legitimate. From a data protection perspective, it has been clear from the very beginning that many of the new purposes that registrant data were being put to, would not be permissible by law under the original purpose of WHOIS. We never looked at the collection instrument, (RAA) it was accepted as fait accompli. We did not go over the extensive collection of documents that we had received from the DPAs. So a thorough, tabula rasa discussion of the purpose of collection of registrant data is in order, in my view. And SAC 055 agrees with that view. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-04-25 17:34, Carlton Samuels wrote: ...and FWIW, the Review Team's final report was a very important substrate upon which the EWG's work was advanced. The EWG spent an inordinate amount of time resolving the question as to whether there was a purposeful need for registration data and if so, what should be collected, the standards for collection, how it should be curated and the safeguards, why and how it should be published and the mechanisms for publication. I say again, it would be a sign of malignancy to embrace any attempt to bounce the rubble here. If there is new and original insight of value to the end game, let it be heard. Otherwise, enough good minds and treasure are exhausted answering those questions. Lets get on with it. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: 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<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman> Kathy Kleiman"<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman> <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@kathykleiman.com> kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@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<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dpurpose&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=gYsnbc0nP-KLQYZYH7zwJoTq_v1XlnuWoZeUWEVTbZE&s=O2AG5wV0Zo2LJ7ZQZ1TVhCFBXTd7bx3GcUYvajgOc9k&e=>
Thanks Chuck, for this reminder. One of the key reasons I keep pounding away on the need to go back to basics and discuss the purpose of ICANN governing, through the RAA and other instruments, the collection, use and disclosure of registrant data, is to get to the bottom of how it sets policy for information governance. This is because we need to be sure that all aspects of information governance are within its mandate. IF it has strayed into serving the information desires (I will not accept the use of the term "needs") of a growing host of information users, this indeed mirrors what has happened in the online world (how fondly we privacy advocates look back on the first cookies scandals back in 1996-2000, as compared with the network advertising initiative and its members' activities after the Doubleclick debacle, let alone what goes on today). It does not make it right, from a perspective of fundamental rights. Certainly, the horse has long since left the barn, but the unhappy job of regulators (and the civil society who fight alongside them but often wish they would do a better job of it) is always to go and find the horse and get it back to the barn, an often thankless task. I have had the opportunity lately of trying to explain to both academics and data commissioners exactly how information is managed at ICANN, now that I appear to have a better handle on it. It is crystal clear that getting a grip on this, if one is not immersed in ICANN or the domain name management business, is not that easy. For instance, I suspect (but have nothing but apocryphal data collected to support) that data commissioners have spent more time discussing whois policy with their cctld managers, failing to understand that ICANN has less influence on these matters. They have focused less on the RAA. It might be useful for this team to either get a briefing, or get the documentation arising from, Nigel Hickson's trip to Germany to discuss the correspondence/impasse between ICANN and the article 29 group with respect to waivers and the RAA more generally. If we have a report on that in our document list, I have somehow missed it. Kind regards, Stephanie On 2016-04-27 0:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
With regard to the RAA as well as registry agreements with gTLD registries, one of the possible outcomes of this WG is the recommendation of consensus policies. As I think many of you know, gTLD registries and registrars are required in their agreements to implement consensus policies approved by the Board so the consensus policies would become a requirement in the applicable agreements.
Chuck
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:01 PM *To:* Stephanie Perrin; gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question
Hi Stephanie,
I disagree that we accepted the RAA as fait accompli. I think the whole EWG team spent many hours discussing any view point in reference to registration data purpose, collection and display. We also reviewed any document that was brought to our attention from DPA’s or Article 29 WP. We may not have agreed on the interpretation and meaning of those documents but we discussed data collection and privacy more than any other topic since it was so crucial to our work.
Best,
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
*From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> *Date: *Monday, April 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM *To: *"gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-purpose] Additional Information/question
I would actually disagree. We discussed the use cases for data, accepting those current uses as by and large legitimate. From a data protection perspective, it has been clear from the very beginning that many of the new purposes that registrant data were being put to, would not be permissible by law under the original purpose of WHOIS. We never looked at the collection instrument, (RAA) it was accepted as fait accompli. We did not go over the extensive collection of documents that we had received from the DPAs. So a thorough, tabula rasa discussion of the purpose of collection of registrant data is in order, in my view. And SAC 055 agrees with that view.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-04-25 17:34, Carlton Samuels wrote:
...and FWIW, the Review Team's final report was a very important substrate upon which the EWG's work was advanced.
The EWG spent an inordinate amount of time resolving the question as to whether there was a purposeful need for registration data and if so, what should be collected, the standards for collection, how it should be curated and the safeguards, why and how it should be published and the mechanisms for publication.
I say again, it would be a sign of malignancy to embrace any attempt to bounce the rubble here. If there is new and original insight of value to the end game, let it be heard.
Otherwise, enough good minds and treasure are exhausted answering those questions.
Lets get on with it.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
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<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman>
Kathy Kleiman" <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofKathyKleiman><gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@kathykleiman.com>
kathy@kathykleiman.com> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofkathy@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 <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-purpose mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-purpose@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-purpose <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
participants (6)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Gomes, Chuck -
Kathy Kleiman -
Marika Konings -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi