Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December
Dear Lisa: The poll is missing an option that describes the status quo, and the option came up in yesterday's discussion. That option could be stated: "Thin data' about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy." Can the poll be re-done with the addition option available? I don't want to choose any of the current options, and the option above is important since it describes the current situation. The poll doesn't present this option. Crucially, all the current choices say that data would be "accessible" only if users first meet a condition. For example, option "a" means that all users would be required to declare their use/intent (and therefore possibly their identity) before being allowed to access any data. That's the only way to deny access for "illegitimate purposes". Currently, data is accessible in WHOIS to anyone who wants to look at it, and policy dictates that there are some things one should not then USE it for. On the call, someone mentioned that these prohibited uses are mentioned in the RAA. (In paragraph 3.3.5 to be precise.) To put it another way: access to data is currently given to all, and the policy is that people shouldn't then use the data for things like spamming. The policy does not gate access to the data; the policy is a terns of use. On yesterday's call, Alan Greenberg and I made comments along the lines that it's problematic to make all the users of WHOIS declare their intent/use before getting (on-PII) data. It would make all legitimate users jump through hoops, and it wouldn't be an enforceable policy anyway. (Did I paraphrase correctly, Alan?) Thanks, --Greg RAA 3.3.5: "In providing query-based public access to registration data as required by Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided, except as permitted by any Specification or Policy established by ICANN. Unless and until ICANN establishes a different Consensus Policy, Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, postal mail, facsimile or other means of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of any Registry Operator or ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations." From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. Best regards, Lisa
Greg, the poll question was worded to separate future deliberation on authentication and any potential access controls from current deliberation on the concept of purpose and whether and how purpose would apply to policy. Would it address your concern if you gave in your rationale for not supporting any of the 4 options listed the explanation that you gave in your email? Lisa Sent from Lisa Phifer's iPhone
On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> wrote:
Dear Lisa:
The poll is missing an option that describes the status quo, and the option came up in yesterday’s discussion. That option could be stated: “Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy.”
Can the poll be re-done with the addition option available? I don’t want to choose any of the current options, and the option above is important since it describes the current situation.
The poll doesn’t present this option. Crucially, all the current choices say that data would be “accessible” only if users first meet a condition. For example, option “a” means that all users would be required to declare their use/intent (and therefore possibly their identity) before being allowed to access any data. That’s the only way to deny access for “illegitimate purposes”.
Currently, data is accessible in WHOIS to anyone who wants to look at it, and policy dictates that there are some things one should not then USE it for. On the call, someone mentioned that these prohibited uses are mentioned in the RAA. (In paragraph 3.3.5 to be precise.) To put it another way: access to data is currently given to all, and the policy is that people shouldn’t then use the data for things like spamming. The policy does not gate access to the data; the policy is a terns of use.
On yesterday’s call, Alan Greenberg and I made comments along the lines that it’s problematic to make all the users of WHOIS declare their intent/use before getting (on-PII) data. It would make all legitimate users jump through hoops, and it wouldn’t be an enforceable policy anyway. (Did I paraphrase correctly, Alan?)
Thanks, --Greg
RAA 3.3.5: “In providing query-based public access to registration data as required by Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided, except as permitted by any Specification or Policy established by ICANN. Unless and until ICANN establishes a different Consensus Policy, Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, postal mail, facsimile or other means of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of any Registry Operator or ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.”
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December
Dear all,
During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question:
2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes?
focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data."
To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2
Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation.
All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call.
Best regards, Lisa
Thanks, Lisa. No, your suggestion does not work for me, because. · The current options do not separate the concepts you mention. The current options all involve purpose AND access control, and all presume that access control to thin data is required. We are not there yet. · The current options all present policy as something that can ONLY implemented via access control. My option does not. · Since the goal of the poll is to “reflect the breadth of discussion on yesterday’s call”, and my option was discussed yesterday, it is logical to include it. · Soliciting opinion about options except the one that the community currently has in place seems like an odd choice. All best, --Greg From: Lisa Phifer [mailto:lisa@corecom.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:04 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Greg, the poll question was worded to separate future deliberation on authentication and any potential access controls from current deliberation on the concept of purpose and whether and how purpose would apply to policy. Would it address your concern if you gave in your rationale for not supporting any of the 4 options listed the explanation that you gave in your email? Lisa Sent from Lisa Phifer's iPhone On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Lisa: The poll is missing an option that describes the status quo, and the option came up in yesterday’s discussion. That option could be stated: “Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy.” Can the poll be re-done with the addition option available? I don’t want to choose any of the current options, and the option above is important since it describes the current situation. The poll doesn’t present this option. Crucially, all the current choices say that data would be “accessible” only if users first meet a condition. For example, option “a” means that all users would be required to declare their use/intent (and therefore possibly their identity) before being allowed to access any data. That’s the only way to deny access for “illegitimate purposes”. Currently, data is accessible in WHOIS to anyone who wants to look at it, and policy dictates that there are some things one should not then USE it for. On the call, someone mentioned that these prohibited uses are mentioned in the RAA. (In paragraph 3.3.5 to be precise.) To put it another way: access to data is currently given to all, and the policy is that people shouldn’t then use the data for things like spamming. The policy does not gate access to the data; the policy is a terns of use. On yesterday’s call, Alan Greenberg and I made comments along the lines that it’s problematic to make all the users of WHOIS declare their intent/use before getting (on-PII) data. It would make all legitimate users jump through hoops, and it wouldn’t be an enforceable policy anyway. (Did I paraphrase correctly, Alan?) Thanks, --Greg RAA 3.3.5: “In providing query-based public access to registration data as required by Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided, except as permitted by any Specification or Policy established by ICANN. Unless and until ICANN establishes a different Consensus Policy, Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, postal mail, facsimile or other means of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of any Registry Operator or ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.” From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. Best regards, Lisa
Greg, I suggest that you insert your comments below in the comment box for item 2 and leave the four choices for item 1 blank. I just did a test submission and that will be allowed by Survey Monkey. We have a very short time for survey completion so to change the survey now would make the time even shorter. We also have a very short time to prepare surveys after a WG call so they will not be perfect. But hopefully they will facilitate more member participation than we normally get on the list. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 2:28 PM To: Lisa Phifer <lisa@corecom.com> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Thanks, Lisa. No, your suggestion does not work for me, because. •••••••• The current options do not separate the concepts you mention. The current options all involve purpose AND access control, and all presume that access control to thin data is required. We are not there yet. •••••••• The current options all present policy as something that can ONLY implemented via access control. My option does not. •••••••• Since the goal of the poll is to “reflect the breadth of discussion on yesterday’s call”, and my option was discussed yesterday, it is logical to include it. •••••••• Soliciting opinion about options except the one that the community currently has in place seems like an odd choice. All best, --Greg From: Lisa Phifer [mailto:lisa@corecom.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:04 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Greg, the poll question was worded to separate future deliberation on authentication and any potential access controls from current deliberation on the concept of purpose and whether and how purpose would apply to policy. Would it address your concern if you gave in your rationale for not supporting any of the 4 options listed the explanation that you gave in your email? Lisa Sent from Lisa Phifer's iPhone On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Lisa: The poll is missing an option that describes the status quo, and the option came up in yesterday’s discussion. That option could be stated: “Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy.” Can the poll be re-done with the addition option available? I don’t want to choose any of the current options, and the option above is important since it describes the current situation. The poll doesn’t present this option. Crucially, all the current choices say that data would be “accessible” only if users first meet a condition. For example, option “a” means that all users would be required to declare their use/intent (and therefore possibly their identity) before being allowed to access any data. That’s the only way to deny access for “illegitimate purposes”. Currently, data is accessible in WHOIS to anyone who wants to look at it, and policy dictates that there are some things one should not then USE it for. On the call, someone mentioned that these prohibited uses are mentioned in the RAA. (In paragraph 3.3.5 to be precise.) To put it another way: access to data is currently given to all, and the policy is that people shouldn’t then use the data for things like spamming. The policy does not gate access to the data; the policy is a terns of use. On yesterday’s call, Alan Greenberg and I made comments along the lines that it’s problematic to make all the users of WHOIS declare their intent/use before getting (on-PII) data. It would make all legitimate users jump through hoops, and it wouldn’t be an enforceable policy anyway. (Did I paraphrase correctly, Alan?) Thanks, --Greg RAA 3.3.5: “In providing query-based public access to registration data as required by Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided, except as permitted by any Specification or Policy established by ICANN. Unless and until ICANN establishes a different Consensus Policy, Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, postal mail, facsimile or other means of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of any Registry Operator or ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.” From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. Best regards, Lisa
I agree with Greg Aaron that this possibility should be made available. If the poll can't be changed, then the group should be advised that there is a specific "write-in" candidate, i.e., *“Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy.”* A specific "write-in" option will make it easier to assemble and evaluate the responses, since it mitigates the issue of dealing with varying wording, addition of factors and ambiguities, which come from individuals crafting their own responses with similar intent. It also clarifies that "write-in" options are welcome. Greg Shatan On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Greg,
I suggest that you insert your comments below in the comment box for item 2 and leave the four choices for item 1 blank. I just did a test submission and that will be allowed by Survey Monkey.
We have a very short time for survey completion so to change the survey now would make the time even shorter. We also have a very short time to prepare surveys after a WG call so they will not be perfect. But hopefully they will facilitate more member participation than we normally get on the list.
Chuck
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Aaron *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 2:28 PM *To:* Lisa Phifer <lisa@corecom.com> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December
Thanks, Lisa. No, your suggestion does not work for me, because.
· The current options do not separate the concepts you mention. The current options all involve purpose AND access control, and all presume that access control to thin data is required. We are not there yet.
· The current options all present policy as something that can ONLY implemented via access control. My option does not.
· Since the goal of the poll is to “reflect the breadth of discussion on yesterday’s call”, and my option was discussed yesterday, it is logical to include it.
· Soliciting opinion about options except the one that the community currently has in place seems like an odd choice.
All best,
--Greg
*From:* Lisa Phifer [mailto:lisa@corecom.com <lisa@corecom.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:04 PM *To:* Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December
Greg, the poll question was worded to separate future deliberation on authentication and any potential access controls from current deliberation on the concept of purpose and whether and how purpose would apply to policy.
Would it address your concern if you gave in your rationale for not supporting any of the 4 options listed the explanation that you gave in your email?
Lisa
Sent from Lisa Phifer's iPhone
On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> wrote:
Dear Lisa:
The poll is missing an option that describes the status quo, and the option came up in yesterday’s discussion. That option could be stated: “Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy.”
Can the poll be re-done with the addition option available? I don’t want to choose any of the current options, and the option above is important since it describes the current situation.
The poll doesn’t present this option. Crucially, all the current choices say that data would be “accessible” only if users first meet a condition. For example, option “a” means that all users would be required to declare their use/intent (and therefore possibly their identity) before being allowed to access any data. That’s the only way to deny access for “illegitimate purposes”.
Currently, data is accessible in WHOIS to anyone who wants to look at it, and policy dictates that there are some things one should not then USE it for. On the call, someone mentioned that these prohibited uses are mentioned in the RAA. (In paragraph 3.3.5 to be precise.) To put it another way: access to data is currently given to all, and the policy is that people shouldn’t then use the data for things like spamming. The policy does not gate access to the data; the policy is a terns of use.
On yesterday’s call, Alan Greenberg and I made comments along the lines that it’s problematic to make all the users of WHOIS declare their intent/use before getting (on-PII) data. It would make all legitimate users jump through hoops, and it wouldn’t be an enforceable policy anyway. (Did I paraphrase correctly, Alan?)
Thanks,
--Greg
RAA 3.3.5: “In providing query-based public access to registration data as required by Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided, except as permitted by any Specification or Policy established by ICANN. Unless and until ICANN establishes a different Consensus Policy, Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, postal mail, facsimile or other means of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of any Registry Operator or ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.”
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Lisa Phifer *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM *To:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December
Dear all,
During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question:
*2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? *focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data."
To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2
Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation.
All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call.
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
Everyone is welcome to write in what Greg suggested (or something of your own liking) and leave the four options in item 1 blank. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 2:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: gca@icginc.com; lisa@corecom.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December I agree with Greg Aaron that this possibility should be made available. If the poll can't be changed, then the group should be advised that there is a specific "write-in" candidate, i.e., “Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy.” A specific "write-in" option will make it easier to assemble and evaluate the responses, since it mitigates the issue of dealing with varying wording, addition of factors and ambiguities, which come from individuals crafting their own responses with similar intent. It also clarifies that "write-in" options are welcome. Greg Shatan On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Greg, I suggest that you insert your comments below in the comment box for item 2 and leave the four choices for item 1 blank. I just did a test submission and that will be allowed by Survey Monkey. We have a very short time for survey completion so to change the survey now would make the time even shorter. We also have a very short time to prepare surveys after a WG call so they will not be perfect. But hopefully they will facilitate more member participation than we normally get on the list. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 2:28 PM To: Lisa Phifer <lisa@corecom.com<mailto:lisa@corecom.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Thanks, Lisa. No, your suggestion does not work for me, because. • The current options do not separate the concepts you mention. The current options all involve purpose AND access control, and all presume that access control to thin data is required. We are not there yet. • The current options all present policy as something that can ONLY implemented via access control. My option does not. • Since the goal of the poll is to “reflect the breadth of discussion on yesterday’s call”, and my option was discussed yesterday, it is logical to include it. • Soliciting opinion about options except the one that the community currently has in place seems like an odd choice. All best, --Greg From: Lisa Phifer [mailto:lisa@corecom.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:04 PM To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Greg, the poll question was worded to separate future deliberation on authentication and any potential access controls from current deliberation on the concept of purpose and whether and how purpose would apply to policy. Would it address your concern if you gave in your rationale for not supporting any of the 4 options listed the explanation that you gave in your email? Lisa Sent from Lisa Phifer's iPhone On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com<mailto:gca@icginc.com>> wrote: Dear Lisa: The poll is missing an option that describes the status quo, and the option came up in yesterday’s discussion. That option could be stated: “Thin data’ about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy.” Can the poll be re-done with the addition option available? I don’t want to choose any of the current options, and the option above is important since it describes the current situation. The poll doesn’t present this option. Crucially, all the current choices say that data would be “accessible” only if users first meet a condition. For example, option “a” means that all users would be required to declare their use/intent (and therefore possibly their identity) before being allowed to access any data. That’s the only way to deny access for “illegitimate purposes”. Currently, data is accessible in WHOIS to anyone who wants to look at it, and policy dictates that there are some things one should not then USE it for. On the call, someone mentioned that these prohibited uses are mentioned in the RAA. (In paragraph 3.3.5 to be precise.) To put it another way: access to data is currently given to all, and the policy is that people shouldn’t then use the data for things like spamming. The policy does not gate access to the data; the policy is a terns of use. On yesterday’s call, Alan Greenberg and I made comments along the lines that it’s problematic to make all the users of WHOIS declare their intent/use before getting (on-PII) data. It would make all legitimate users jump through hoops, and it wouldn’t be an enforceable policy anyway. (Did I paraphrase correctly, Alan?) Thanks, --Greg RAA 3.3.5: “In providing query-based public access to registration data as required by Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided, except as permitted by any Specification or Policy established by ICANN. Unless and until ICANN establishes a different Consensus Policy, Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, postal mail, facsimile or other means of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of any Registry Operator or ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.” From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. Best regards, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Regarding the poll that is currently out for responses, please DO NOT assume that the options in item 1 assume users would be required to declare a purpose or identify or authenticate themselves or whether or not policy might apply additional criteria to determine or control access. If you prefer, leave the options for item 1 blank, and if you would like the following choice, please copy and paste it in the input box for item 2: "Thin data' about gTLD domain names should be accessible to all users anonymously and without declaration of purpose, with illegitimate uses expressly prohibited by policy." Whether you like the design of the poll or not, I want to point out that it has already generated feedback that will be useful as we continue to deliberate on question 2.1. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 2:42 PM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, To elaborate a bit more on this poll's goal - Yesterday's WG call suggested a need to tease apart an extremely complex set of possibilities and permutations into smaller simpler pieces. To do so, we tried to create a poll question that asked as narrowly as possible whether purpose should play a role in access to "thin data" while giving you an opportunity to elaborate on why or why not. If results suggest that purpose should apply in some way then the WG can further deliberate on how. This is why the options listed for Q1 do not state (and were not intended to imply) anything about whether or not users would be required to declare a purpose or identify or authenticate themselves or whether or not policy might apply additional criteria to determine or control access. See also Q1 instructions given in the yellow box beneath the list of options. In addition, the Q2 comment box can be used to identify any important assumptions that influenced your Q1 response, to propose alternatives or refinements for consideration during the WG's next call, and so on. Such comments may help us spot differences in interpretation that are important to make explicit in next-step deliberation. If this approach of trying to answer one very narrow question first doesn't help deliberation move forward, we can try another approach. Best, Lisa
I know that everyone is busy and many are preparing for holidays but hope more of you will complete the poll. It should only take a few minutes and the more data we have for our meeting next week the better. If you are still debating in your mind how you feel about the question, say that in the text box for item 2. That's what I did. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. Best regards, Lisa
Hi Chuck, one suggestion for future polls would be to also request all participants indicate their affiliation with the constituency they represent, so results can be sorted both by simple majority and by affiliation. I feel the latter gives a much clearer picture of how positions may be distributed and what may look like a majority in absolute numbers may turn out as only one or two vocal SGs or constituencies vs the rest. Best, Volker Am 16.12.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Gomes, Chuck:
I know that everyone is busy and many are preparing for holidays but hope more of you will complete the poll. It should only take a few minutes and the more data we have for our meeting next week the better.
If you are still debating in your mind how you feel about the question, say that in the text box for item 2. That’s what I did.
Chuck
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lisa Phifer *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM *To:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December
Dear all,
During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question:
/2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes?
/focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data."
To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2
Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation.
All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call.
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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Thanks for the suggestion Volker but I have a few concerns/thoughts: ******** We have made it very clear that the polls should not be considered votes and I fear that showing affiliation would make it seem more like a vote, as would determining whether a majority is reached. ******** The intent of a poll is to clarify positions that were advocated in a WG meeting to make sure we capture them accurately and also to allow those who were not in the meeting to express their views. ******** We will use the results of the polls to guide our agenda for the next meeting. ******** A secondary but important purpose of polling is to facilitate active participation in between meetings. ******** To keep our work flowing in a timely manner, it is critical that polls be kept brief and that response times are short; if members have to share their affiliation, they may feel obligated to check with the groups they represent, which will take more time; of course we expect that members will regularly be in communication with their respective groups but to so with every poll would be very hard. ******** I think it is fair to assume that most of us have a pretty good idea about the views of the groups we represent so it should be possible in most cases for us to respond to poll questions in ways that are consistent or at least not inconsistent with the views of our group; there may be instances where we share our personal views, but that should still help us get a sense of where the WG is as a whole, understanding that we will have plenty of opportunity to verify that our personal views are supported by our groups going forward. ******** A key success factor for our WG will be to uncover as many diverse points of view as possible, regardless of affiliation, so that we can then discuss them and strive to find areas of agreement. ******** The leadership team will monitor the level of participation in polls from various constituency groups to make sure that there are not significant gaps and take steps as possible to close the gaps. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:38 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Hi Chuck, one suggestion for future polls would be to also request all participants indicate their affiliation with the constituency they represent, so results can be sorted both by simple majority and by affiliation. I feel the latter gives a much clearer picture of how positions may be distributed and what may look like a majority in absolute numbers may turn out as only one or two vocal SGs or constituencies vs the rest. Best, Volker Am 16.12.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Gomes, Chuck: I know that everyone is busy and many are preparing for holidays but hope more of you will complete the poll. It should only take a few minutes and the more data we have for our meeting next week the better. If you are still debating in your mind how you feel about the question, say that in the text box for item 2. That's what I did. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. Best regards, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Chuck. I agree that these polls should not be considered a referendum, but I do think there is value in collecting and publishing details on which stakeholder groups are participating in the poll. Perhaps we do not need to know that X voted for Y, but I would find it helpful to see a simple pie chart for each survey which broke down in an aggregate format which stakeholder groups had participated in the polling. Thanks for considering this suggestion for a future poll. Ayden Férdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Local Time: 19 December 2016 5:46 PM UTC Time: 19 December 2016 17:46 From: cgomes@verisign.com To: vgreimann@key-systems.net <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks for the suggestion Volker but I have a few concerns/thoughts: · We have made it very clear that the polls should not be considered votes and I fear that showing affiliation would make it seem more like a vote, as would determining whether a majority is reached. · The intent of a poll is to clarify positions that were advocated in a WG meeting to make sure we capture them accurately and also to allow those who were not in the meeting to express their views. · We will use the results of the polls to guide our agenda for the next meeting. · A secondary but important purpose of polling is to facilitate active participation in between meetings. · To keep our work flowing in a timely manner, it is critical that polls be kept brief and that response times are short; if members have to share their affiliation, they may feel obligated to check with the groups they represent, which will take more time; of course we expect that members will regularly be in communication with their respective groups but to so with every poll would be very hard. · I think it is fair to assume that most of us have a pretty good idea about the views of the groups we represent so it should be possible in most cases for us to respond to poll questions in ways that are consistent or at least not inconsistent with the views of our group; there may be instances where we share our personal views, but that should still help us get a sense of where the WG is as a whole, understanding that we will have plenty of opportunity to verify that our personal views are supported by our groups going forward. · A key success factor for our WG will be to uncover as many diverse points of view as possible, regardless of affiliation, so that we can then discuss them and strive to find areas of agreement. · The leadership team will monitor the level of participation in polls from various constituency groups to make sure that there are not significant gaps and take steps as possible to close the gaps. Chuck [ ] From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:38 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Hi Chuck, one suggestion for future polls would be to also request all participants indicate their affiliation with the constituency they represent, so results can be sorted both by simple majority and by affiliation. I feel the latter gives a much clearer picture of how positions may be distributed and what may look like a majority in absolute numbers may turn out as only one or two vocal SGs or constituencies vs the rest. Best, Volker Am 16.12.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Gomes, Chuck: I know that everyone is busy and many are preparing for holidays but hope more of you will complete the poll. It should only take a few minutes and the more data we have for our meeting next week the better. If you are still debating in your mind how you feel about the question, say that in the text box for item 2. That’s what I did. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG [<gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>](mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org) Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: [https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 ](https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2)Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Thanks for the feedback Ayden. For the reasons I cited, I do not support doing this at this time but we can revisit it in the future if there seems to be a legitimate need. Please explain to me why you think it would add value and not detract from what we are trying to do. Chuck Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Chuck. I agree that these polls should not be considered a referendum, but I do think there is value in collecting and publishing details on which stakeholder groups are participating in the poll. Perhaps we do not need to know that X voted for Y, but I would find it helpful to see a simple pie chart for each survey which broke down in an aggregate format which stakeholder groups had participated in the polling. Thanks for considering this suggestion for a future poll. Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Local Time: 19 December 2016 5:46 PM UTC Time: 19 December 2016 17:46 From: cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> To: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Thanks for the suggestion Volker but I have a few concerns/thoughts: * We have made it very clear that the polls should not be considered votes and I fear that showing affiliation would make it seem more like a vote, as would determining whether a majority is reached. * The intent of a poll is to clarify positions that were advocated in a WG meeting to make sure we capture them accurately and also to allow those who were not in the meeting to express their views. * We will use the results of the polls to guide our agenda for the next meeting. * A secondary but important purpose of polling is to facilitate active participation in between meetings. * To keep our work flowing in a timely manner, it is critical that polls be kept brief and that response times are short; if members have to share their affiliation, they may feel obligated to check with the groups they represent, which will take more time; of course we expect that members will regularly be in communication with their respective groups but to so with every poll would be very hard. * I think it is fair to assume that most of us have a pretty good idea about the views of the groups we represent so it should be possible in most cases for us to respond to poll questions in ways that are consistent or at least not inconsistent with the views of our group; there may be instances where we share our personal views, but that should still help us get a sense of where the WG is as a whole, understanding that we will have plenty of opportunity to verify that our personal views are supported by our groups going forward. * A key success factor for our WG will be to uncover as many diverse points of view as possible, regardless of affiliation, so that we can then discuss them and strive to find areas of agreement. * The leadership team will monitor the level of participation in polls from various constituency groups to make sure that there are not significant gaps and take steps as possible to close the gaps. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:38 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Hi Chuck, one suggestion for future polls would be to also request all participants indicate their affiliation with the constituency they represent, so results can be sorted both by simple majority and by affiliation. I feel the latter gives a much clearer picture of how positions may be distributed and what may look like a majority in absolute numbers may turn out as only one or two vocal SGs or constituencies vs the rest. Best, Volker Am 16.12.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Gomes, Chuck: I know that everyone is busy and many are preparing for holidays but hope more of you will complete the poll. It should only take a few minutes and the more data we have for our meeting next week the better. If you are still debating in your mind how you feel about the question, say that in the text box for item 2. That's what I did. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. Best regards, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi Chuck, A recurrent theme over the past few weeks seems to be a lack of participation in the poll. If there is a public record of which stakeholder groups / constituencies are participating in the polls, it may encourage greater participation. I’m not looking to see the names of participants, nor am I looking to see which button they have checked in the poll (though I’d welcome people voluntarily sharing their positions on the list), but if we see that only certain stakeholder groups are participating in great numbers and others are not, we can work amongst ourselves to rectify that, as the position of, say, a single participant from a stakeholder group / constituency is not necessarily dispositive of the position of everyone with that affiliation. I see this as keeping ourselves accountable. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Local Time: 19 December 2016 10:14 PM UTC Time: 19 December 2016 22:14 From: cgomes@verisign.com To: icann@ferdeline.com <icann@ferdeline.com> vgreimann@key-systems.net <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks for the feedback Ayden. For the reasons I cited, I do not support doing this at this time but we can revisit it in the future if there seems to be a legitimate need. Please explain to me why you think it would add value and not detract from what we are trying to do. Chuck Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Chuck. I agree that these polls should not be considered a referendum, but I do think there is value in collecting and publishing details on which stakeholder groups are participating in the poll. Perhaps we do not need to know that X voted for Y, but I would find it helpful to see a simple pie chart for each survey which broke down in an aggregate format which stakeholder groups had participated in the polling. Thanks for considering this suggestion for a future poll. Ayden Férdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Local Time: 19 December 2016 5:46 PM UTC Time: 19 December 2016 17:46 From: cgomes@verisign.com To: vgreimann@key-systems.net <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Thanks for the suggestion Volker but I have a few concerns/thoughts: · We have made it very clear that the polls should not be considered votes and I fear that showing affiliation would make it seem more like a vote, as would determining whether a majority is reached. · The intent of a poll is to clarify positions that were advocated in a WG meeting to make sure we capture them accurately and also to allow those who were not in the meeting to express their views. · We will use the results of the polls to guide our agenda for the next meeting. · A secondary but important purpose of polling is to facilitate active participation in between meetings. · To keep our work flowing in a timely manner, it is critical that polls be kept brief and that response times are short; if members have to share their affiliation, they may feel obligated to check with the groups they represent, which will take more time; of course we expect that members will regularly be in communication with their respective groups but to so with every poll would be very hard. · I think it is fair to assume that most of us have a pretty good idea about the views of the groups we represent so it should be possible in most cases for us to respond to poll questions in ways that are consistent or at least not inconsistent with the views of our group; there may be instances where we share our personal views, but that should still help us get a sense of where the WG is as a whole, understanding that we will have plenty of opportunity to verify that our personal views are supported by our groups going forward. · A key success factor for our WG will be to uncover as many diverse points of view as possible, regardless of affiliation, so that we can then discuss them and strive to find areas of agreement. · The leadership team will monitor the level of participation in polls from various constituency groups to make sure that there are not significant gaps and take steps as possible to close the gaps. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:38 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Hi Chuck, one suggestion for future polls would be to also request all participants indicate their affiliation with the constituency they represent, so results can be sorted both by simple majority and by affiliation. I feel the latter gives a much clearer picture of how positions may be distributed and what may look like a majority in absolute numbers may turn out as only one or two vocal SGs or constituencies vs the rest. Best, Volker Am 16.12.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Gomes, Chuck: I know that everyone is busy and many are preparing for holidays but hope more of you will complete the poll. It should only take a few minutes and the more data we have for our meeting next week the better. If you are still debating in your mind how you feel about the question, say that in the text box for item 2. That’s what I did. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG [<gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>](mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org) Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: [https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 ](https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2)Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Ayden, If I was convinced that sharing the poll participation levels would increase the number of responses, we would do that. My fear and that of the leadership team is that it would have the opposite effect and I am not willing to risk that at this time. As I said in my original response to Volker, we are monitoring the participation levels and will communicate to the WG if we see serious gaps in participation. On the most recent poll, there was a good balance of participation, albeit small. I encourage members who have not been responding to the polls to start doing so. Then this won’t be an issue. Chuck From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann@ferdeline.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:03 AM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Hi Chuck, A recurrent theme over the past few weeks seems to be a lack of participation in the poll. If there is a public record of which stakeholder groups / constituencies are participating in the polls, it may encourage greater participation. I’m not looking to see the names of participants, nor am I looking to see which button they have checked in the poll (though I’d welcome people voluntarily sharing their positions on the list), but if we see that only certain stakeholder groups are participating in great numbers and others are not, we can work amongst ourselves to rectify that, as the position of, say, a single participant from a stakeholder group / constituency is not necessarily dispositive of the position of everyone with that affiliation. I see this as keeping ourselves accountable. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Local Time: 19 December 2016 10:14 PM UTC Time: 19 December 2016 22:14 From: cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> To: icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com> <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Thanks for the feedback Ayden. For the reasons I cited, I do not support doing this at this time but we can revisit it in the future if there seems to be a legitimate need. Please explain to me why you think it would add value and not detract from what we are trying to do. Chuck Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Cc: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Chuck. I agree that these polls should not be considered a referendum, but I do think there is value in collecting and publishing details on which stakeholder groups are participating in the poll. Perhaps we do not need to know that X voted for Y, but I would find it helpful to see a simple pie chart for each survey which broke down in an aggregate format which stakeholder groups had participated in the polling. Thanks for considering this suggestion for a future poll. Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Local Time: 19 December 2016 5:46 PM UTC Time: 19 December 2016 17:46 From: cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> To: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Thanks for the suggestion Volker but I have a few concerns/thoughts: • We have made it very clear that the polls should not be considered votes and I fear that showing affiliation would make it seem more like a vote, as would determining whether a majority is reached. • The intent of a poll is to clarify positions that were advocated in a WG meeting to make sure we capture them accurately and also to allow those who were not in the meeting to express their views. • We will use the results of the polls to guide our agenda for the next meeting. • A secondary but important purpose of polling is to facilitate active participation in between meetings. • To keep our work flowing in a timely manner, it is critical that polls be kept brief and that response times are short; if members have to share their affiliation, they may feel obligated to check with the groups they represent, which will take more time; of course we expect that members will regularly be in communication with their respective groups but to so with every poll would be very hard. • I think it is fair to assume that most of us have a pretty good idea about the views of the groups we represent so it should be possible in most cases for us to respond to poll questions in ways that are consistent or at least not inconsistent with the views of our group; there may be instances where we share our personal views, but that should still help us get a sense of where the WG is as a whole, understanding that we will have plenty of opportunity to verify that our personal views are supported by our groups going forward. • A key success factor for our WG will be to uncover as many diverse points of view as possible, regardless of affiliation, so that we can then discuss them and strive to find areas of agreement. • The leadership team will monitor the level of participation in polls from various constituency groups to make sure that there are not significant gaps and take steps as possible to close the gaps. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:38 AM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Hi Chuck, one suggestion for future polls would be to also request all participants indicate their affiliation with the constituency they represent, so results can be sorted both by simple majority and by affiliation. I feel the latter gives a much clearer picture of how positions may be distributed and what may look like a majority in absolute numbers may turn out as only one or two vocal SGs or constituencies vs the rest. Best, Volker Am 16.12.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Gomes, Chuck: I know that everyone is busy and many are preparing for holidays but hope more of you will complete the poll. It should only take a few minutes and the more data we have for our meeting next week the better. If you are still debating in your mind how you feel about the question, say that in the text box for item 2. That’s what I did. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:54 AM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Input requested: RDS PDP WG Poll on Purpose - 13 December Dear all, During the 13 December RDS PDP WG call, we started deliberation on the following charter question and sub-question: 2. Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why? 2.1 Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? focusing first on how these questions apply to "thin data." To give all WG members an opportunity to share opinions about concepts that surfaced during this call, we have launched the following poll: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6BMJLB2 Poll participation is optional, but sharing your thoughts through this poll will help us organize inputs for continued deliberation. All poll responses received by COB Saturday 17 December will be aggregated and used as input to the next WG call. Best regards, Lisa _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
participants (6)
-
Ayden Férdeline -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Aaron -
Greg Shatan -
Lisa Phifer -
Volker Greimann