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
<[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]>
> 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
>> <[log in to unmask]> 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
>>> (<[log in to unmask]>) 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
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> 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 (<[log in to unmask]>)
>>>> 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