Proposed resolution for raw poll data
Dear all, Earlier this month, a request was made to publish "raw data" for WG member polls. The leadership team examined Survey Monkey poll data exports that might satisfy this request and realized that all contained fields that may pose a privacy concern to some: WG member name, IP address, and timestamps. To take into consideration WG member wishes for both privacy and transparency, our 18 January poll sought input on concerns (if any) on personal data that you would prefer not be included in raw data that might be published for future WG polls. During our 24 January call, the request to publish raw data and WG member responses were discussed. Most objected to including the IP address of the device used to take a poll; one-third objected to including WG member name and/or PDFs of individual poll responses. After lengthy discussion, several WG members indicated that an explanation of the problem to be solved by publishing raw data was needed before deciding to include these or other new fields in published results. Noting the WG's desire to focus on substantive deliberation at this time, the leadership team proposes the following next steps to resolve the original request for raw data. (1) To be responsive to both the request for raw data and WG member concerns about fields currently contained in Survey Monkey exports, we will post an XLS export of all poll data gathered without the IP address, WG member name, and timestamp columns which will be deleted from the exported XLS prior to posting. This raw data XLS will be published in addition to our usual aggregate result summary PDF for all future polls. (2) Anyone who wishes may propose to the WG mailing list more data they would like to see added to future published poll results, along with rationale about the problem that adding that data would address. Any such proposals will be discussed and refined primarily via the WG email list (and perhaps polling) to focus WG call time on deliberation of charter questions and key concepts. While (1) may end up being sufficient, (2) allows for further WG discussion about additional steps. Best regards, Lisa
With respect to the leadership team, this is not raw data. Raw data — which is what has been requested — is output taken straight from the source, and published unedited. What you are looking to release is processed data, scrubbed of the IP addresses, time stamps, and respondent names. This may sound like semantics but there is a very significant difference between the two. If it is agreed that we want processed data published (and I do not, I would like the raw data published), we need to have a discussion on the degree of processing, and choices being made during this process, by those who have access to the Survey Monkey account. For instance, does the processing consist merely of removing three columns, or is the data analysed and duplicate responses removed? Are duplicate responses included, but we do not know because the three columns that identify them as being duplicates have been removed? Or is this a case of the leadership team and ICANN staff having privileged access to information when we would all find it useful? These are rhetorical questions and I am not insinuating anything here — I'm simply saying it is impossible for those of us who do not have access to the raw data in the Survey Monkey account to learn more about the underlying data, and that's the very reason why it has been requested. I would like to see the raw data published. If any data elements are so sensitive that we cannot release them to all working group members (like respondent names), we should not be collecting them in the first place. I certainly see no reason to collect time stamps or IP addresses. If Survey Monkey does not provide a robust-enough platform to administer surveys without collecting this information, then we should be using a different platform. Thank you, Ayden Férdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data Local Time: 29 January 2017 1:56 AM UTC Time: 29 January 2017 01:56 From: lisa@corecom.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Dear all, Earlier this month, a request was made to publish “raw data” for WG member polls. The leadership team examined Survey Monkey poll data exports that might satisfy this request and realized that all contained fields that may pose a privacy concern to some: WG member name, IP address, and timestamps. To take into consideration WG member wishes for both privacy and transparency, our 18 January poll sought input on concerns (if any) on personal data that you would prefer not be included in raw data that might be published for future WG polls. During our 24 January call, the request to publish raw data and WG member responses were discussed. Most objected to including the IP address of the device used to take a poll; one-third objected to including WG member name and/or PDFs of individual poll responses. After lengthy discussion, several WG members indicated that an explanation of the problem to be solved by publishing raw data was needed before deciding to include these or other new fields in published results. Noting the WG’s desire to focus on substantive deliberation at this time, the leadership team proposes the following next steps to resolve the original request for raw data. (1) To be responsive to both the request for raw data and WG member concerns about fields currently contained in Survey Monkey exports, we will post an XLS export of all poll data gathered without the IP address, WG member name, and timestamp columns which will be deleted from the exported XLS prior to posting. This raw data XLS will be published in addition to our usual aggregate result summary PDF for all future polls. (2) Anyone who wishes may propose to the WG mailing list more data they would like to see added to future published poll results, along with rationale about the problem that adding that data would address. Any such proposals will be discussed and refined primarily via the WG email list (and perhaps polling) to focus WG call time on deliberation of charter questions and key concepts. While (1) may end up being sufficient, (2) allows for further WG discussion about additional steps. Best regards, Lisa
Your opinions and wishes are noted Ayden. If the WG supports releasing raw data in its purest form, the leadership team is willing to do that. So far, that is not the case. In the meantime we plan to do what we proposed until such time that the WG agrees on another approach. I would love to understand what you hope to learn from pure raw data. Do you not trust the leadership team? All we are trying to do is a get a rough sense of where members are. We are not claiming to be doing scientifically accurate surveys. One thing I am personally opposed to is to make our processes so complex that it will take us 10 years to complete our work. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 12:36 PM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data With respect to the leadership team, this is not raw data. Raw data — which is what has been requested — is output taken straight from the source, and published unedited. What you are looking to release is processed data, scrubbed of the IP addresses, time stamps, and respondent names. This may sound like semantics but there is a very significant difference between the two. If it is agreed that we want processed data published (and I do not, I would like the raw data published), we need to have a discussion on the degree of processing, and choices being made during this process, by those who have access to the Survey Monkey account. For instance, does the processing consist merely of removing three columns, or is the data analysed and duplicate responses removed? Are duplicate responses included, but we do not know because the three columns that identify them as being duplicates have been removed? Or is this a case of the leadership team and ICANN staff having privileged access to information when we would all find it useful? These are rhetorical questions and I am not insinuating anything here — I'm simply saying it is impossible for those of us who do not have access to the raw data in the Survey Monkey account to learn more about the underlying data, and that's the very reason why it has been requested. I would like to see the raw data published. If any data elements are so sensitive that we cannot release them to all working group members (like respondent names), we should not be collecting them in the first place. I certainly see no reason to collect time stamps or IP addresses. If Survey Monkey does not provide a robust-enough platform to administer surveys without collecting this information, then we should be using a different platform. Thank you, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data Local Time: 29 January 2017 1:56 AM UTC Time: 29 January 2017 01:56 From: lisa@corecom.com<mailto:lisa@corecom.com> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Dear all, Earlier this month, a request was made to publish “raw data” for WG member polls. The leadership team examined Survey Monkey poll data exports that might satisfy this request and realized that all contained fields that may pose a privacy concern to some: WG member name, IP address, and timestamps. To take into consideration WG member wishes for both privacy and transparency, our 18 January poll sought input on concerns (if any) on personal data that you would prefer not be included in raw data that might be published for future WG polls. During our 24 January call, the request to publish raw data and WG member responses were discussed. Most objected to including the IP address of the device used to take a poll; one-third objected to including WG member name and/or PDFs of individual poll responses. After lengthy discussion, several WG members indicated that an explanation of the problem to be solved by publishing raw data was needed before deciding to include these or other new fields in published results. Noting the WG’s desire to focus on substantive deliberation at this time, the leadership team proposes the following next steps to resolve the original request for raw data. (1) To be responsive to both the request for raw data and WG member concerns about fields currently contained in Survey Monkey exports, we will post an XLS export of all poll data gathered without the IP address, WG member name, and timestamp columns which will be deleted from the exported XLS prior to posting. This raw data XLS will be published in addition to our usual aggregate result summary PDF for all future polls. (2) Anyone who wishes may propose to the WG mailing list more data they would like to see added to future published poll results, along with rationale about the problem that adding that data would address. Any such proposals will be discussed and refined primarily via the WG email list (and perhaps polling) to focus WG call time on deliberation of charter questions and key concepts. While (1) may end up being sufficient, (2) allows for further WG discussion about additional steps. Best regards, Lisa
Ayden I have no issue with “raw” or “processed” data being shared BUT only for future polls where people know that the data is going to be shared in that manner. Doing it retroactively is not a good idea and I would oppose it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Some thoughts: http://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Sunday 29 January 2017 at 17:35 To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data With respect to the leadership team, this is not raw data. Raw data — which is what has been requested — is output taken straight from the source, and published unedited. What you are looking to release is processed data, scrubbed of the IP addresses, time stamps, and respondent names. This may sound like semantics but there is a very significant difference between the two. If it is agreed that we want processed data published (and I do not, I would like the raw data published), we need to have a discussion on the degree of processing, and choices being made during this process, by those who have access to the Survey Monkey account. For instance, does the processing consist merely of removing three columns, or is the data analysed and duplicate responses removed? Are duplicate responses included, but we do not know because the three columns that identify them as being duplicates have been removed? Or is this a case of the leadership team and ICANN staff having privileged access to information when we would all find it useful? These are rhetorical questions and I am not insinuating anything here — I'm simply saying it is impossible for those of us who do not have access to the raw data in the Survey Monkey account to learn more about the underlying data, and that's the very reason why it has been requested. I would like to see the raw data published. If any data elements are so sensitive that we cannot release them to all working group members (like respondent names), we should not be collecting them in the first place. I certainly see no reason to collect time stamps or IP addresses. If Survey Monkey does not provide a robust-enough platform to administer surveys without collecting this information, then we should be using a different platform. Thank you, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data Local Time: 29 January 2017 1:56 AM UTC Time: 29 January 2017 01:56 From: lisa@corecom.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Dear all, Earlier this month, a request was made to publish “raw data” for WG member polls. The leadership team examined Survey Monkey poll data exports that might satisfy this request and realized that all contained fields that may pose a privacy concern to some: WG member name, IP address, and timestamps. To take into consideration WG member wishes for both privacy and transparency, our 18 January poll sought input on concerns (if any) on personal data that you would prefer not be included in raw data that might be published for future WG polls. During our 24 January call, the request to publish raw data and WG member responses were discussed. Most objected to including the IP address of the device used to take a poll; one-third objected to including WG member name and/or PDFs of individual poll responses. After lengthy discussion, several WG members indicated that an explanation of the problem to be solved by publishing raw data was needed before deciding to include these or other new fields in published results. Noting the WG’s desire to focus on substantive deliberation at this time, the leadership team proposes the following next steps to resolve the original request for raw data. (1) To be responsive to both the request for raw data and WG member concerns about fields currently contained in Survey Monkey exports, we will post an XLS export of all poll data gathered without the IP address, WG member name, and timestamp columns which will be deleted from the exported XLS prior to posting. This raw data XLS will be published in addition to our usual aggregate result summary PDF for all future polls. (2) Anyone who wishes may propose to the WG mailing list more data they would like to see added to future published poll results, along with rationale about the problem that adding that data would address. Any such proposals will be discussed and refined primarily via the WG email list (and perhaps polling) to focus WG call time on deliberation of charter questions and key concepts. While (1) may end up being sufficient, (2) allows for further WG discussion about additional steps. Best regards, Lisa
I might add that without proper agreement by each individual, to disclosure of past data would put the WG in violation of the law in a number of jurisdictions. Also, in a move to disclosure, each participant would have to expressly agree (consensus could not be binding on all). Those who do not agree would probably have to not participate, since macro data and the majority of disclosed results would leave them identifiable. Sam L. On 1/30/2017 8:04 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Ayden
I have no issue with “raw” or “processed” data being shared BUT only for future polls where people know that the data is going to be shared in that manner.
Doing it retroactively is not a good idea and I would oppose it.
Regards
Michele
< rest deleted >
Well yes, there is that too ☺ -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Some thoughts: http://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> Date: Monday 30 January 2017 at 13:25 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>, RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data I might add that without proper agreement by each individual, to disclosure of past data would put the WG in violation of the law in a number of jurisdictions. Also, in a move to disclosure, each participant would have to expressly agree (consensus could not be binding on all). Those who do not agree would probably have to not participate, since macro data and the majority of disclosed results would leave them identifiable. Sam L. On 1/30/2017 8:04 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Ayden I have no issue with “raw” or “processed” data being shared BUT only for future polls where people know that the data is going to be shared in that manner. Doing it retroactively is not a good idea and I would oppose it. Regards Michele < rest deleted >
Something to take care off when there is a new poll and require consent for personal data disclosure, like IP addresses. Theo Michele Neylon - Blacknight schreef op 2017-01-30 02:38 PM:
Well yes, there is that too J
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Some thoughts: http://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
FROM: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> DATE: Monday 30 January 2017 at 13:25 TO: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>, RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data
I might add that without proper agreement by each individual, to disclosure of past data would put the WG in violation of the law in a number of jurisdictions. Also, in a move to disclosure, each participant would have to expressly agree (consensus could not be binding on all). Those who do not agree would probably have to not participate, since macro data and the majority of disclosed results would leave them identifiable.
Sam L.
On 1/30/2017 8:04 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Ayden
I have no issue with “raw” or “processed” data being shared BUT only for future polls where people know that the data is going to be shared in that manner.
Doing it retroactively is not a good idea and I would oppose it.
Regards
Michele
< rest deleted > _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
I actually cannot believe we are having this debate. We accept wholesale disclosure of personal data in the WHOIS, and the group of people assembled to discuss the matter as a working group and set policy are offended by airing their own views, and want anonymity??? Unbelievable. I support Ayden's comments, not because I don't trust anyone but as a matter of principle. However, this discussion has proven one thing we will not have to argue about in future, timestamps and IP address are personal information. Time saved there Chuck! Cheers Stephanie On 2017-01-30 08:38, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Well yes, there is that too J
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Some thoughts: http://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> *Date: *Monday 30 January 2017 at 13:25 *To: *Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>, RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data
I might add that without proper agreement by each individual, to disclosure of past data would put the WG in violation of the law in a number of jurisdictions. Also, in a move to disclosure, each participant would have to expressly agree (consensus could not be binding on all). Those who do not agree would probably have to not participate, since macro data and the majority of disclosed results would leave them identifiable.
Sam L.
On 1/30/2017 8:04 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Ayden
I have no issue with “raw” or “processed” data being shared BUT only for future polls where people know that the data is going to be shared in that manner.
Doing it retroactively is not a good idea and I would oppose it.
Regards
Michele
< rest deleted >
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Ayden, What more do you want to learn about the data? How do you intend to use/process the data and how/where might you use the end results? That might help ground the discussion a bit more. Thanks. Greg On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I actually cannot believe we are having this debate. We accept wholesale disclosure of personal data in the WHOIS, and the group of people assembled to discuss the matter as a working group and set policy are offended by airing their own views, and want anonymity??? Unbelievable.
I support Ayden's comments, not because I don't trust anyone but as a matter of principle.
However, this discussion has proven one thing we will not have to argue about in future, timestamps and IP address are personal information. Time saved there Chuck! Cheers Stephanie
On 2017-01-30 08:38, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Well yes, there is that too J
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <+353%2059%20918%203072>
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <+353%2059%20918%203090>
Social: http://mneylon.social
Some thoughts: http://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> <sam@lanfranco.net> *Date: *Monday 30 January 2017 at 13:25 *To: *Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com> <michele@blacknight.com>, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> <icann@ferdeline.com>, RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data
I might add that without proper agreement by each individual, to disclosure of past data would put the WG in violation of the law in a number of jurisdictions. Also, in a move to disclosure, each participant would have to expressly agree (consensus could not be binding on all). Those who do not agree would probably have to not participate, since macro data and the majority of disclosed results would leave them identifiable.
Sam L.
On 1/30/2017 8:04 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Ayden
I have no issue with “raw” or “processed” data being shared BUT only for future polls where people know that the data is going to be shared in that manner.
Doing it retroactively is not a good idea and I would oppose it.
Regards
Michele
< rest deleted >
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
While this is not the choice I would have made, I want to thank the leadership team for identifying this reasonable and rational compromise that I can live with and will support going forward. As for my position, Stephanie’s message later in this thread comes to mind… Jim On 28 Jan 2017, at 20:56, Lisa Phifer wrote:
Dear all,
Earlier this month, a request was made to publish "raw data" for WG member polls. The leadership team examined Survey Monkey poll data exports that might satisfy this request and realized that all contained fields that may pose a privacy concern to some: WG member name, IP address, and timestamps. To take into consideration WG member wishes for both privacy and transparency, our 18 January poll sought input on concerns (if any) on personal data that you would prefer not be included in raw data that might be published for future WG polls.
During our 24 January call, the request to publish raw data and WG member responses were discussed. Most objected to including the IP address of the device used to take a poll; one-third objected to including WG member name and/or PDFs of individual poll responses. After lengthy discussion, several WG members indicated that an explanation of the problem to be solved by publishing raw data was needed before deciding to include these or other new fields in published results.
Noting the WG's desire to focus on substantive deliberation at this time, the leadership team proposes the following next steps to resolve the original request for raw data.
(1) To be responsive to both the request for raw data and WG member concerns about fields currently contained in Survey Monkey exports, we will post an XLS export of all poll data gathered without the IP address, WG member name, and timestamp columns which will be deleted from the exported XLS prior to posting. This raw data XLS will be published in addition to our usual aggregate result summary PDF for all future polls.
(2) Anyone who wishes may propose to the WG mailing list more data they would like to see added to future published poll results, along with rationale about the problem that adding that data would address. Any such proposals will be discussed and refined primarily via the WG email list (and perhaps polling) to focus WG call time on deliberation of charter questions and key concepts.
While (1) may end up being sufficient, (2) allows for further WG discussion about additional steps.
Best regards,
Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
participants (9)
-
Ayden Férdeline -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
gtheo -
James Galvin -
Lisa Phifer -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Sam Lanfranco -
Stephanie Perrin