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

[Akinremi Peter Taiwo]

Thanks Raphael.

Regards.
Peter

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <
rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>


-- 
*Akinremi Peter Taiwo*
[ West Africa Coordinator ]
African Civil Society on Information Society (*ACSIS*)
*Website: *www.acsis-scasi.org

*Chief E*xecutive Consultant.
[ Compsoftnet Enterprise ]
www.compsoftnet.com.ng
Nigeria

*T*echnical Consultant
[ RetailPoint ]
Lagos
Website: www.retailpos.com.ng

*Phone:* +2347-0638-30177, +2348-1874-76292
*twitter:* @compsoftnet
*Skype:* akinremi.peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180723/b7766744/attachment.htm>