[NCSG-PC] GNSO Council Accuracy Assignment - Questions to be answered by NCSG

Tue Jan 28 22:30:26 EET 2025

Hi Farzi,

Thanks for the contribution. It is timely!

@everyone, are there any other suggested contributions to these questions?

I am also re-attaching the ICANN Org response here since it appears the
previous link is now broken.

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 15:17, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Tomslin. Please see my responses below:
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 8:58 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> If you recall, Registration data accuracy has been a topic of contention
>> in the community now for a while. Those who follow the the topic know that
>> the Accuracy Scoping team was paused by the council due to challenges of
>> pursuing further work on accuracy, including that
>>
>>    1. It is unclear whether [the scenarios] would provide useful data to
>>    inform the Accuracy Scoping Team’s efforts;
>>    2. The scenarios are not expected to provide data as it relates to
>>    identity verification of the registrant or veracity of the contact
>>    information (i.e., the data belongs to the data subject);
>>    3. The costs associated with a full-scale registrar audit [Scoping
>>    Team Recommendation #2] may be prohibitive when taking into account the
>>    relatively low level of insight the audit may yield;
>>    4. ICANN does not have the authority to mandate collection of
>>    nonpublic registration data necessary to conduct reviews outside of
>>    auditing current contractual requirements; and
>>    5. ICANN may not be able to demonstrate the purpose of some of the
>>    data processing outweighs the rights of the impacted data subject.
>>
>> As a result, deliberations on this topic on the council was deferred till
>> February and an assignment to ask ICANN Org some clarifying legal
>> questions, and thereafter ask each SG/C to respond to a set of threshold
>> questions that will help guide the way forward on this topic was agreed by
>> the council. ICANN Org came back with their response
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/da78dbeb-dd4d-4f3f-96c2-1d5abfe7810b/d3fd2bca-021f-494b-957c-0c800d63f333__;!!PtGJab4!5ebsdR0WRUrjpIzUO8HekPbjqckThf0GWEiIM_7eVuzWwd4NAuc_-nt2-GqtwpE87UIulB_KPGxmS00M_1a2SSvlTw$>
>> just before the December holidays.
>>
>> Now therefore, each SG/C is required to respond to the threshold
>> questions
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/draft-concept-proposal-accuracy-12sep24.pdf>
>> by Friday 31 January 2025. We forgot to include it for discussion in our
>> Policy meeting earlier this week. However, I request that members provide
>> their input via this email thread. Once agreed, we'll forward our response
>> to the Council. The questions we have to answer are in the link above but
>> for convenience, I'll list them here below:
>>
>>    1. *What are concrete and articulable examples of what inaccurate
>>    data DOES prevent or inhibit, and how does it do so?*
>>
>> Inaccurate domain name registrant data should be defined based on the
> purpose of accuracy within the scope of ICANN's mandate: ensuring that the
> registrant is 'contactable.' If the registrant cannot be reached due to
> undeliverable messages caused by errors in the provided contact details,
> the data should be deemed inaccurate.
>
>>
>>    1. *What are concrete and articulable examples of what inaccurate
>>    data does NOT prevent?*
>>
>>
>>    1. *Are there specific stakeholders, industries, or sectors
>>    particularly vulnerable to the effects of inaccurate registration data? If
>>    so, what are they and why?*
>>
>> Domain name registrants can be affected by insisting on having even more
> "accuracy" requirements. In order to ensure accuracy suggestions could be
> made to "identify" domain name registrants which goes against the principle
> of respecting anonymity should the domain name registrant want to remain
> anonymous and identification of registrants can have an adverse impact on
> data protection and access to domain names globally.
>
>
>
>>    1. *Given the examples provided in response to the three questions
>>    above (if any), please articulate a short problem statement for accuracy.
>>    The problem statement should consider:*
>>       - *What is the current problem or challenge?*
>>       - *What are the consequences of this problem or challenge?*
>>       - *What is the ultimate objective of working on this problem or
>>       challenge?*
>>       - *Considering the limitations of data processing, how do you
>>       propose to address this problem?*
>>
>> We don't believe there are many challenges facing data accuracy. There
> are already requirements in place for domain name registrants to keep their
> data accurate, and there is an ultimate punishment for that: losing their
> domain name if they don't do so. Please refer to registrants obligation
> here:
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-accurate-2023-11-02-en?utm_source=chatgpt.com
>
>
>>
>>    1. *Is now the appropriate time to address the problem? For example,
>>    some stakeholders have mentioned the implementation of NIS2 as an important
>>    precursor to understanding new accuracy requirements. Should this or other
>>    examples be considered prior to engaging in potential policy work?*
>>
>> it's crucial to remember that NIS2 is a directive, not a regulation. Its
> implementation will vary across European jurisdictions, and it shouldn't
> set the accuracy standard for ICANN. This is due to two key reasons:
>
> 1. NIS2's provisions concerning domain names were influenced by specific
> stakeholder groups, not by multistakeholder consensus.
> 2. Some transposing laws (e.g., Germany) aim to identify registrants
> through data accuracy to prevent fraud. However, we believe that accuracy
> at ICANN should not necessitate registrant identification.
>
>>
>>    1. *Are the ICANN org alternatives proposals worth exploring, such
>>    as:*
>>       - *Provision of historical audit data that measures registrars’
>>       compliance with accuracy-related provisions in the RAA.*
>>       - *Engagement with contracted parties and ccTLD operators on
>>       developments in European policymaking regarding registration data accuracy.*
>>    2. *What are the limitations of the ICANN proposals? Why should or
>>    should they not be pursued?*
>>    3. *What other possibilities can be explored to move our work on
>>    Accuracy forward?*
>>
>> I look forward to your contribution to these questions.
>>
>> Warmly,
>> Tomslin
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Feodora Hamza via council <council at icann.org>
>> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 at 23:11
>> Subject: [council] Re: Follow-up GNSO Council Accuracy Assignment
>> To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>, council at gnso.icann.org <
>> council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear Councilors,
>>
>>
>>
>> due to technical issues, please see accuracy assignment attached and
>> linked below.
>>
>> Accuracy Assignment:
>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/draft-concept-proposal-accuracy-12sep24.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Feodora Hamza
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"DiBiase, Gregory via council" <council at icann.org>
>> *Reply to: *"DiBiase, Gregory" <dibiase at amazon.com>
>> *Date: *Thursday, 12 December 2024 at 20:57
>> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[council] Follow-up GNSO Council Accuracy Assignment
>>
>>
>>
>>    - *Attachments protected by Amazon: *
>>    - Answer to the GNSO questions on accuracy.pdf
>>    [us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com]
>>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/da78dbeb-dd4d-4f3f-96c2-1d5abfe7810b/d3fd2bca-021f-494b-957c-0c800d63f333__;!!PtGJab4!5ebsdR0WRUrjpIzUO8HekPbjqckThf0GWEiIM_7eVuzWwd4NAuc_-nt2-GqtwpE87UIulB_KPGxmS00M_1a2SSvlTw$> |
>>
>>    - ATT00001.txt [us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com]
>>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/da78dbeb-dd4d-4f3f-96c2-1d5abfe7810b/94d6cb3e-3ab2-446c-a385-9c201a9cffc9__;!!PtGJab4!5ebsdR0WRUrjpIzUO8HekPbjqckThf0GWEiIM_7eVuzWwd4NAuc_-nt2-GqtwpE87UIulB_KPGxmS00M_1ZAKmAJaA$> |
>>
>>
>> Amazon has replaced the attachments in this email with download links.
>> Downloads will be available until January 11, 2025, 19:56 (UTC+00:00). Tell
>> us what you think [amazonexteu.qualtrics.com]
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/amazonexteu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ehuz6zGo8YnsRKK__;!!PtGJab4!5ebsdR0WRUrjpIzUO8HekPbjqckThf0GWEiIM_7eVuzWwd4NAuc_-nt2-GqtwpE87UIulB_KPGxmS00M_1Zzdd6ztA$>
>>
>> For more information click here [docs.secure-attach.amazon.com]
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.secure-attach.amazon.com/guide__;!!PtGJab4!5ebsdR0WRUrjpIzUO8HekPbjqckThf0GWEiIM_7eVuzWwd4NAuc_-nt2-GqtwpE87UIulB_KPGxmS00M_1ZzNkqBbQ$>
>>
>> Dear Councilors,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am following up on the attached email from ICANN Org in which they
>> provided their input on the accuracy assignment.  On 25 October, we shared
>> the proposed accuracy assignment, which included questions for ICANN org
>> and the community.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now that ICANN org has provided responses to the Council’s questions, we
>> are now sending the remaining questions in the attached proposal to
>> interested SG/C/ACs for their input. Given the proximity to the holidays,
>> we propose giving groups until Friday, 31 January 2025 to provide their
>> input to the Council.
>>
>>
>>
>> As noted during the Council’s previous discussions on the topic of
>> accuracy, the Council recognizes the importance of accuracy and is
>> committed to making progress on this issue. Your group’s responses to these
>> questions are very important for the Council’s future discussion, and we
>> strongly encourage your groups to think about these questions and provide
>> candid responses.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you in advance for your input.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Greg
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list -- council at icann.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave at icann.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20250129/611df1b8/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Answer to the GNSO questions on accuracy-2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 145338 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20250129/611df1b8/attachment-0001.pdf>