[Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata

[Elsa S]

Great Juan! Thank you for the clarification. We could potentially add it to
the metadata vocabulary part! I’ll take a look at the document today and
Resolve some of those points.

Best,

Elsa
—

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:17 AM Juan Alejo Peirano <
juan.alejo.peirano at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Elsa,
>
> Thank you for your message. Please find some comments below in between
> lines.
>
> El El vie, 20 de jul. de 2018 a las 01:23, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
>> Hi Juan,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your comments! Any comment is very welcome,
>> especially a constructive one like this one.
>>
>> We do agree that the data labeled “restricted” should not be disclosed,
>> however, we thought that it would be best that ICANN disclose to the public
>> the reason why they are restricted. We understand why it’s best that they
>> be kept restricted, however it is a responsible act from ICANN to include a
>> small description explaining the
>>
> restriction.
>>
>
> Totally agree with the fact that ICANN should make the wording used on the
> spreadsheet as understandable and clear as possible.
>
> My comment aimed towards that it is mentioned on our document that the
> restriction and the clarification of the term should be addressed as an
> error of the provided spreadsheet. From my point of view, it is not an
> error given the intrinsic characteristics of the described data.As I
> mentioned on the document, I would prefer to address this issue in a
> different section of our statement. But again, I’m in favor of asking for
> clarification of any unclear term used on the spreadsheet.
>
>>
>> Does that answer your point?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Elsa
>> —
>>
>
> Thank you again for your response and time spent on this matter!
>
> Juan
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:32 PM Juan Alejo Peirano <
>> juan.alejo.peirano at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your response! Being this a large group of people with
>>> diverse interests, drafting a document with the mentioned time-constrains
>>> is quite a challenge. I don't want my comments to be too thorough on the
>>> technical side - some times it doesn't add anything to the substance and
>>> it's just a pain in the a**. That's why I wanted to make sure that I'm in
>>> line with the dynamics of the group.
>>>
>>> +1 to the following:
>>> - Hi Elsa et al, thanks for starting this effort and drafting this
>>> comment
>>>
>>> All the best!
>>>
>>> Juan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El jue., 19 jul. 2018 a las 20:18, Ayden Férdeline (<icann at ferdeline.com>)
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>>> Hi Juan, thanks for flagging this and welcome to the NCSG! Your
>>>> explanation sounds very sensible. (And it is perfectly acceptable to make
>>>> comments about the substance of our statements that are in the process of
>>>> being drafted on this mailing list.)
>>>>
>>>> Hi Elsa et al, thanks for starting this effort and drafting this
>>>> comment. I have made a few suggested edits to the document now.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>> On 19 July 2018 8:56 PM, Juan Alejo Peirano <
>>>> juan.alejo.peirano at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> First of all, thank you for having me in this great group. Hope that my
>>>> comments would be of value, to address the interests of the group in the
>>>> best way possible.
>>>>
>>>> A quick question first, do we need to comment on the shared document or
>>>> by email?
>>>>
>>>> Giving that this is my first comment, I would prefer to do it by email,
>>>> sorry for that :)
>>>>
>>>> My comment is regarding the point 3 of the doc section "Errors and
>>>> omissions".
>>>> The restricted files appear to be related with configuration files
>>>> (particularly TLDs zone files and root zone servers files) and for security
>>>> reason, it is sensible for them not to be available as Open Data.
>>>> Configurations zone files could be use for cyberattacks, especially if the
>>>> attacker knows how the DNS zone is defined on the server.
>>>> I'm totally in favor of asking for clarification why the term
>>>> restricted is used on the spreadsheet, but I would not push for access of
>>>> such files, it would be a risk for the integrity of the DNS zones. Also, I
>>>> would not classify that as an "error" on the document, from a technical
>>>> perspective the classification "restricted" makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if I'm off topic at any point of this comment. Being
>>>> this my first, I could be totally wrong and out of  scope from the
>>>> interests of the group.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> Juan Alejo Peirano
>>>>
>>>> El jue., 19 jul. 2018 a las 18:58, Elsa S (<elsa.saade at gmail.com>)
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is our pleasure to share with you the draft public comment on the
>>>>> Open Data Initiative (ODI) which Yazid, Antonella, Shahul, Akinremi and
>>>>> myself worked on over the past week, with the help of Rafik!
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments on the ODI Datasets and Metadata
>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/odi-datasets-metadata-2018-06-11-en>
>>>>> opened in June this year, where ICANN asked the community for advice as to
>>>>> which datasets in their shared inventory should be published first. The
>>>>> publishing chronology would be based on the comments ICANN receives, and
>>>>> the aim of sharing the data according to what the CEO's Blog post
>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-org-s-open-data-strategy>
>>>>> mentioned, would be to increase evidence-based policy development.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dataset inventory includes 232 elements on all sorts of topics,
>>>>> SGs and Cs. We went through them as carefully as we could on this
>>>>> spreadsheet
>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-8L98u7lz73g6a04Hhp673CqEj_4e1ltYd0f43Qs2wQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>> which you could also take a look at, and our conclusions were drafted in this
>>>>> google doc
>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit?usp=sharing>.
>>>>> At this point, we need your input keeping in mind NCSG's priorities. We
>>>>> thank everyone who contributed, and any member who will contribute to make
>>>>> this comment more fit to submit. Note that the closing date is in a week's
>>>>> time, so the sooner the contributions, the better for us all! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> *Our suggestion for most efficiency would be for you to read the
>>>>> google doc first, check the spreadsheet, then add any comments or
>>>>> suggestions to the comment accordingly.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Please do let us know if there is anything that needs further
>>>>> elaboration, and happy reading!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Elsa
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Elsa Saade
>>>>> Consultant
>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Juan Alejo Peirano
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juan Alejo Peirano
>>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Elsa Saade
>> Consultant
>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>
> --
> Juan Alejo Peirano
>
-- 
--

Elsa Saade
Consultant
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180720/b80a9052/attachment.htm>