Zoom Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2 Team Call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
38:36
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
42:03
I should have a draft of the new alternative proposal ready within a few hours after this call is over. Will send it to the small team.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
42:21
@Berry: Yup.
Terri Agnew
44:01
Reminder for members - please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
48:07
Lost you, is it just me?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
48:23
(I am in low bandwidth territory)
Terri Agnew
51:04
@Stephanie, audio is fine on this end.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
51:34
So staff is basically deciding whose suggestions are taken seriously and whose are not?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
55:36
we certainly sent some strong indications that we were not happy with the redlining of one of our requests.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
55:49
on Rec 7/1`6
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
55:56
7/16
Marika Konings
56:29
Note that only those red items have been included in the compilation for which groups identified that they identified in the google doc that they did not agree with the staff support team proposed path.
Marika Konings
56:36
Exactly, Alan
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
57:10
I’m a little confused now too. :-)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
58:20
@Marika: Ah…, thanks. That wasn’t my understanding when we worked on the doc.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
58:30
We told you in no uncertain terms that we were completely opposed to your dismissal of our request tot change MUST to SHOULD in Rec 7
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
58:31
That’s probably why our input was dropped.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
58:43
@Milton: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
58:50
Shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:00:08
I am still not clear about this. Is Marika telling us that because they ignored our notification that we can’t live with something that we can no longer discuss it?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:06:06
well, the silence in response to the question above is deafening.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:06:22
We will be raising the issue, have no doubt about that.
Marika Konings
01:07:16
For completeness, the proposed edit is: ““... or where they may be otherwise permitted under recommendation 1.4(d).”.
Brian King (IPC)
01:07:44
That's not a fair ask. What we're really talking about it 1.4(d), and we're happy to accomodate
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:08:26
We (NCSG) do not support removing the parenthetical. It is not “too broad” it is simply a specific illustration
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:15:08
of course IPC/BC submitted it
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:15:13
who else would care?
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:15:22
+1 Janis -- we have so many big issues to tackle. Perhaps prioritizing the issues in our next agenda may help?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:15:59
+1 Laureen…we are almost an hour in and not sure what we have done
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:16:06
An this is a green item!
Brian King (IPC)
01:16:17
+1 Laureen and Georgios
Marika Konings
01:16:32
@Georgios - it was originally green, but has been flagged for discussion, that is why it is included here.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:16:36
@MarkSV: I’m really missing the point of disagreement here. What does your proposed language actually change, as opposed to the language already in there?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:17:43
@Brian: Isn’t this a BC comment?! This is getting more confusing by the minute!!
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:17:50
Brian is right - the objection is not specifically to the parenthetical - sorry. But proposed language would have clarified our intent
Brian King (IPC)
01:18:41
"where they may be otherwise permitted under 1.4(d)." full stop would do it
Margie Milam (BC)
01:19:08
+1 Brian
Brian King (IPC)
01:20:08
Thanks, Berry. You captured the suggestion.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:20:33
exactly Marc
Brian King (IPC)
01:20:53
If the RySG is aware of other places in the report that we need to solve for, please provide specific examples.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:21:02
nothing wrong with the more general “otherwise permitted"
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:23:37
12(b) for example.... this seems like language trying to invalidate 12(b)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:24:31
please get rid of the 1.4d language, it is not accepted
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:25:00
@MarkSV: That’s a fair point. So the real ask here is changing the reference to 1.4(d), and amend 1.4(d) to include any other applicable scenario?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:26:00
@Amr I think that is the good approach
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:26:35
Makes sense to remove IMO
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:28:47
no.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:28:53
let’s go with e)
Marika Konings
01:30:59
Maybe it is not conflicting, but it is not exactly clear what the difference between the two I?
Marika Konings
01:31:04
I = is
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:31:34
From Me to All panelists: (10:48 AM)
I would just like to flag that this is not the only “gotcha” in the document. We all need to have a careful re=read of the document at the end, to see which items might have been impacted by word changes elsewhere. This is a perfectly normal procedure in drafting, I just don’t want anyone saying “well you should have raised that on June 16th or whenever’.
Brian King (IPC)
01:32:25
That's a good reminder, Stephanie. Such is life with complicated policy docs, I suppose. Thank goodness we have staff to help us.
Berry Cobb
01:34:34
When we traverse all the Can't Live With Items, there is a quiet period for the EPDP to do just that, review the Final Report draft in its entirety.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:36:09
Is 1.2(c) supposed to refer to two different privacy policies? One that is developed in accordance to the other? The way I see it, they’re both actually referring to the same privacy policy?
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:36:49
thank you
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:41:11
My understanding is the same staff’s.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:41:23
*same as staff's.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:41:56
The contracted party is the only party with the data so how would it not sent to the contracted party?
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:43:23
The contracted party has LESS liability -
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:43:33
not zero liability
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:46:08
"I'm not a doctor..."
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:46:46
Mark!! LOL!!
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:49:25
So Janis just walked us through it…the request HAS to go to the contracted party
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:54:50
right, Becky. this whole discussion seems to be another time-wasting effort to deny that the CPs are data controllers
Brian King (IPC)
01:55:20
I'm trying to help CPs limit liability
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:55:31
We all seem to have interpreted the memo somewhat differently
Brian King (IPC)
01:55:32
No doubt CPs are controllers in some ways
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:55:39
@Brian- I’m not sure that the DPAs would agree with you
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:55:48
I don’t think so, I think you are trying to help get automated disclosure, which is not the model we agreed to
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:56:23
@Owen, I am not sure they wouldn't agree :) hence this debate
Brian King (IPC)
01:56:29
CPs do not have to be controllers for the processing activity of the disclosure of the data to the requestor.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:56:40
As we’ve said previously, parts of the process can be automated (e.g. checking for completeness, verifying a trademark registration, etc), but the balancing test needs meaningful human review. We cannot require contracted parties to automatically disclose data
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:56:41
Agree to no change.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:56:46
Agree Janis
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:56:56
Agreed.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:57:12
@Owen: No, a balancing test does NOT require human review in all cases
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:58:12
@Becky: +1
Brian King (IPC)
01:58:44
Thanks, Becky. I agree with you. Let's do that.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:59:22
Also to points that both Stephanie and AlanW made, having the decision to disclose being made automatically/centrally doesn’t change the Registrar’s status as a Controller, and may lessen liability, but I don’t see how it would eliminate it altogether.
Marika Konings
01:59:39
By moving it to the policy rec language we would change ‘is expected to’ to ‘MUST’ so it is consistent with how other recommendations have been worded.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:03:27
Safest seems to leave it as it was
Marika Konings
02:04:06
Footnote 23
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:05:51
I’m fine with moving it. Also fine with leaving it where it is.
Marika Konings
02:06:36
It is the last sentence of the footnote
Marika Konings
02:07:15
It would be an FYI not about making a decision
Marika Konings
02:07:31
It is about sharing the disclosure request for the CPs record, not for review.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:09:49
The relay of the information has nothing to do with when the decision to disclose is made, as far as I can tell?
Marika Konings
02:09:52
We only made it explicit in our rationale, not in the footnote.
Marika Konings
02:10:01
@Amr - correct
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:12:02
Again…+1 Janis…
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:12:11
Also +1 @Janis.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:12:15
amen Janis
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:12:23
spinning wheels is correct description
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:13:40
Why does that prevent automation.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:13:49
It has nothing to do with automation
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:14:04
exactly Matt. I'm very confused.
Marika Konings
02:14:25
@Hadia - the disclosure request would still be relayed, but just for the Cps records as the CP will have already been directed to automatically disclose the information requested.
Berry Cobb
02:14:41
The downstream effect of not sending a receipt of disclosure is how can the CGM/SSAD handle requests for data subjects to see how, when and where data is disclosed for such requests that were automated? The CGM has no way to verify that the data subject/RNH is the owner of domain that was disclosed.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:14:52
We would not accept such a chance
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:15:04
It seems this is a minority view based on the conversation…can we note that and move on?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:15:17
This is just about the relay of the disclosure request/acknowledgment of receipt. Not about when or how the decision to disclose is made.
Hadia Elminiawi(ALAC)
02:15:23
@Marika yes I know, but that is only clear through the footnote, but not through the recommendation itself
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:15:45
The have the data…how could you NOT relay it???
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:15:49
we literally just went through that
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:16:12
@AlanG: We’ve already answered that. Not necessarily immediately, and the purpose of relaying the request is for Registrar records.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:19:34
I do not understand what ALAC and IPC think they are getting from this proposed chnage
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:31:09
I thought we were saying the requestor could request it goes to the registry, but the gateway reserves the right to not do that if not appropriate
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:31:24
@Matt: That is my understanding as well.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:33:35
@Matt, mine too
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:34:00
So we all agree…let’s cross it off the list!
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:34:06
exactly. It's not at the simple option of the requester. You can make a request and that request can be denied in the absence of a valid indicator.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:34:19
can we just say that if the Rr is incapaci
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:34:25
tased the fallback is Ry?
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:35:28
if I ask for lots of .college requests or if I can say that they are involved in the offence?
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
02:35:29
What is missing probably is to indicate what could be the reasons for going to Registry instead of Registrar
Brian King (IPC)
02:35:57
+1 Georgios
Berry Cobb
02:36:06
only 46 pages to go.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:36:26
lol
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:36:29
good luck with that, Janis.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:36:30
lol
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:36:36
Maybe we should ban lawyers ;-)
Hadia Elminiawi(ALAC)
02:36:42
@Berry great!
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:36:45
Or professors ;-)
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:36:48
We are supposed to wrap by what…2023???
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:36:52
ONLY ENGINEERS!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:36:56
Professors look at the big picture
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:37:18
OK, only system architects
Brian King (IPC)
02:37:46
Please ban lawyers
Brian King (IPC)
02:37:52
I could use the hours back :-)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:38:12
@MarkSV: …, and doctors? ;-)
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:38:19
@Amr lol
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:38:30
literally lol
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:38:38
LOL Brian, I am looking after your best interests I know
Brian King (IPC)
02:38:49
I trust you always are, Milton :-)
Hadia Elminiawi(ALAC)
02:39:20
thank you