Cross Community Proposals for ICANN 61

[Raoul Plommer]

As far as I understand, open data would also include stuff like like the
statistical data on volumes of registered domains in different TLDs and I
think ICANN gets this data through its contracts with registrars and
registries, mapping botnets and abuse and their abundance etc.

I'd imagine ICANN holds all kinds of information, that could be used for
various useful purposes, if it would only let people access data in a form
that wouldn't jeopardise people's privacy and security any more than the
current system does. Depending on the quality of the data, it could still
be anonymized and reassembled for statistical analysis at least.

I think the whole ICANN community could use this ODI to analyze DNS and its
users better. Of course there are different needs for different stakeholder
groups. It's like Michael said it, ICANN wants the community to kickstart
the initiative and so far all the other stakeholder groups are bringing
their visions to the initiative. The NCSG has mostly ignored it so far.

We don't need a long session to cover it, but most of all, I would like to
know, what data ICANN has. Maybe they could have a session with some CTO's
staff presenting the types of data available, if nothing else. 30mins
presentation followed up by some Q&A would be very enlightening for all of
us I think.

-Raoul

On 11 December 2017 at 20:37, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Yes disagreeing w/ the "sales pitches" won't make them go away or
> doesn't mean we can do other sessions.
>
> And yes, there's a difference between Open Data and Information
> Transparency.
>
> Still, there is so much to do on both ends.
>
> It would be great really if these initiatives moved forward, faster,
> better and we could be discussing things such as Open Contracting and
> so reusable data.
>
> So why it isn't?
>
> I'm sure you'll find a variety of answers to the questions you posed
> on types of data.
>
> But how about the purpose of Open Data or Transparency, itself.
>
> Why is data so vital like meeting recordings not easily accessible,
> processed, transcribed, reused and linked to budget data?
>
> Who is disagreeing that this data be accessible this way? Why?
>
> So again, an investigation is very worthy and all but I'd really like
> to see us go beyond that. As I said "concrete steps an example of open
> data use cases and guidance to the community"
>
> If this session manages to answer those questions and show
> concreteness, I'd move forward with it.
>
> Best,
>
> Renata
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think ICANN's ODI (Open Data Initiative) impacts all the stakeholder
> > groups and thus the whole community. We just need to know more of the
> > quality of the data that ICANN administers. I was in the other one of the
> > ODI meetings with Michael and I think he agrees that we need to know
> more of
> > what they actually got.
> >
> > If ICANN told us that in advance of a cross community session, the whole
> > community could start evaluating the possibilities and their impacts
> > together.
> >
> > -Raoul
> >
> > On 11 December 2017 at 16:04, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> As someone who was in the sessions about Open Data in ICANN, I don't
> agree
> >> with this being a cross community session.
> >> I could not really see any concrete steps an example of open data use
> >> cases and guidance to the community.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, there are pressing topics that still need to be
> >> addressed.
> >>
> >> In preparation to ICANN63, shouldn't we have a cross community session
> to
> >> re-examine the .cat case?
> >> Whatever one's views on the political aspect of it all, the technical
> and
> >> legal aspects are certainly of interest to ICANN community and I would
> >> propose we gather a variety of community members who could speak to
> this. So
> >> far governments have spoken a lot about it, but not civil society.
> >>
> >> The same goes for the WT5 ongoing work. The GAC has request 3 meetings
> in
> >> ICANN60 to discuss the dot-Amazon case. WT5 seems worth at least 1 cross
> >> community topic. This has also to be an informed debate, with
> participants
> >> who have pioneered new gtlds and those who are interested in using them.
> >> While this seems to me like an important session, I would think it
> could be
> >> a challenge for the new PC NCSG representatives from NCUC, when they are
> >> announced. They could call the session: "Why does GAC wants this so
> much?"
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Renata
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171211/87ebf9da/attachment.htm>