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

Sun Jul 22 17:54:09 EEST 2018

Hi Elsa, hi all,

Thank you and the team for taking the time for drafting the comment. I find
that the points raised in the comment are indeed relevant!  From a broader
perspective, it is good that ICANN has plans to publish more data - I can
see a lot of potential for qualitative and quantitative research here in
various fields of social sciences!

Best,

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:45 PM, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Sure - I went back and found a previous version, and added comments
> noting where the changes had been made. Please forgive the rookie
> mistake :)
>
> I understand the concerns about privacy, and wouldn't suggest removing
> them entirely, but I'm also not sure we should frontload them, or make
> them a central focus of the submission (especially if it seems like
> they're already charting a good course in this area - and taking the
> necessary precautions). Having heard claims of "privacy" being thrown
> around with regard to everything from board deliberations to
> commercial information during the WS2 discussions, the last thing we
> want is for them to start taking an expansive view of that interest,
> or to get gun-shy about developing new datasets and taking the program
> forward as a result of these concerns. We want them to take
> appropriate precautions and redact material where necessary - I don't
> think we want privacy challenges to be used as an excuse to curtail
> the ODI.
>
> Right now there's still two references to the need to take care with
> regard to personal information - which in my opinion expresses
> the point sufficiently.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > I did not see the edits you made, have you suggested them? Or simply
> edited
> > them?
> >
> > I do tend to agree that sometimes privacy could impede on the extent of
> > transparency, however as NCSG fights for both, it would be important to
> flag
> > that some personal data should be kept private. Before we went through
> the
> > spreadsheet and the links thoroughly, some data elements were on the
> surface
> > related to fellowship data, nexgen data, data about councilors at the
> gnso,
> > etc.. and we were unsure how deep those datasets were until we checked
> some
> > of the links and figured out - tentatively - how much data would be
> > published.
> >
> > Point being, even though we checked the links and kind of had a sense
> that
> > privacy in certain important cases is respected, we can never be sure,
> and
> > we cannot take part in leaking such elements given our constant fight for
> > privacy as NCSG. Which is why we mentioned it several times!
> >
> > Your point is taken Michael, but could you kindly go back to the document
> > and make sure that your changes be tracked as suggested? This way members
> > could also comment on those suggestions :)
> >
> > Thanks for the efforts,
> >
> > Elsa
> > —
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:47 AM Michael Karanicolas <
> mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks so much for taking the initiative in drafting this, and for
> >> your thorough engagement with the ODI. I apologize I haven't been more
> >> engaged on this issue recently, the last month or so has been a bit
> >> hectic.
> >>
> >> I wanted to push back a bit on the suggested inclusion of all these
> >> references to privacy though, as I think that in this context they are
> >> unnecessary and counterproductive. In particular, the comment leads
> >> with a statement that: "accuracy and transparency must always be
> >> balanced against the fundamental right to privacy". That statement is
> >> factually incorrect, since many (most?) of the listed datasets don't
> >> have any substantial privacy interest in them, so there's no real
> >> "balancing" to do in these cases. Moreover, I think we want to avoid
> >> endorsing the kind of expansive understandings of privacy that could
> >> have it applied to, say, board deliberations, to raise restrictions on
> >> that kind of information to the level of a human right. This sort of
> >> thinking is more common than you might think, and we should be careful
> >> not to appear to be supporting it, even though we are firm believers
> >> in the right to privacy as it applies to personal information.
> >>
> >> Right now, privacy is mentioned 3 times. I edited out the first two,
> >> and replaced the last one with a reference to personal information.
> >>
> >> Best wishes, and thanks again for taking this forward.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:17 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 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 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
> >> >>>>> which you could also take a look at, and our conclusions were
> >> >>>>> drafted in
> >> >>>>> this google doc. 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/20180722/07b5cd54/attachment.htm>