Logo

EPDP-Phase 2 team call
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
32:19
The sun is shining, the birds are singing, what better to do than talking about accuracy?
Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Liaison)
34:33
that’s the same for everyone Amr
zzzSarah Wyld (RrSG - alternate first hour)
34:44
The link that Terri sent out by email, separate from the ical invite, let me in as a panelist
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
34:44
I had the same issue as Amr
Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Liaison)
35:07
I used my calendar link
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
35:29
it was a bit confusing but I was elevated to panelist very quickly so no problem
Brian King (IPC)
35:34
Same here
Brian King (IPC)
35:39
Thanks
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
36:43
@James: +1. Schedule this past week has been pretty chaotic.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
36:45
Thank you, James
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
36:45
+1 James
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
36:49
Well said
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
36:56
+1 James
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
37:06
james +1
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
37:09
Thanks James
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
37:33
Thanks James
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
37:37
I came in at the tail end of that but heard support for my request yesterday….thanks!!!
James Bladel (RrSG)
38:36
Sounds good, my comment was really about moderating our statements here to respect the sacrifices folks are making to continue this work.
Marc Anderson (RySG)
39:37
Good point, thanks James
Berry Cobb
42:24
The Council did not decalre it out of scope.
Berry Cobb
42:45
It is a matter of complexity and deliverying a final report by our plan.
Berry Cobb
43:33
It was encouraged by the Council to utilize budget while we have it now to better inform future deliberations around this topic.
Margie Milam (BC)
44:03
+1 Berry
Berry Cobb
45:16
Apologies for the mis-spellings.
Brian King (IPC)
45:37
I can clear it up
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
45:48
No thanks, Brian, let’s have an impartial person do it
Terri Agnew
46:08
Reminder to all, please select all panelists and attendees for chat option.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
46:18
yes, de-coupled may be more precise then “out of scope”
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
46:30
So “at Council level” means it is out f scope for this EPDP
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
47:08
Yep
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
47:52
Becky: “decoupled” is a good way to put it. thanks
Berry Cobb
47:56
Nothing more to add from me, Janis.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
49:14
very hard to hear Marc
Berry Cobb
49:14
@Marc, we can understand you, but less than clear.
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
50:50
sorry for being late
Marc Anderson (RySG)
51:07
Does someone have the link handy?
Berry Cobb
51:14
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VwslSx0RKXQjf_eJFvQNQ3V0M_37sELl/edit#
Marc Anderson (RySG)
51:19
thanks
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
54:37
for some reason I cannot figure out how to raise my hand
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
55:08
ahah
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
56:53
hand raise
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
57:37
“might” get a different answer? ;D
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
57:42
I can't raise my hand
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
57:56
sorry I acn
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
57:58
can
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
58:18
we will not die in the ditch over this, but let‘s at least agree that this will be an illegal purpose for a lack of specificity,
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
58:43
click on the participants icon at the bottom of the list of participants is an “unmute me” and a “raise hand” button
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
58:47
going to the bylaws to construe this is not legally permissible to fix it
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
58:47
The Bylaws are not a task list!
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
59:01
Precisely, Thomas.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
59:13
HAND
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
59:22
Please
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
59:36
data subjects need to be able ti understand what happens with their data and not go on an expedition to fins out in the bylaws
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
59:56
@Thomas: Exactly!!
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:00:33
sorry for the typos. too big fingers fir ppp
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:00:44
for a handheld:-)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:03:05
@Becky: Can’t disagree with anything you’ve just said, but the vagueness is still elusive in terms of nailing down what purpose 2 means. Simply stating SSR as a purpose is like saying we need a purpose for ICANN to act in the Global Public Interest (just as vague and controversial).
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:03:39
@Thomas et all, Are you saying that the Purpose 2 proposed by the Commission is illegal?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:03:46
@Milton: +1
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:05:11
I will speak to that, Alan
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:06:24
I’m often illogical. :-)
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:07:44
@milton, that is true with respect to every single purpose identified. Of course the use must be proportionate and not outweighed by the fundamental rights of the individual
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:09:54
@Stephanie: +1
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:10:07
@Amr no your often very much logical - but that one is actually detailed in ICANN's mission and bylaws. The explicit tasks are not there of course but yet ICANN cannot go out of its mission according to its mission
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:10:37
*you are
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:11:00
@Hadia: If you could point me in the direction of the details in ICANN’s mission/bylaws, I’d happily stand corrected.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:11:28
@Thomas: +1
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:11:30
with respect to names, ICANN’s SSR role is specified regarding coordination of development and implementation of policies that fall within clearly specified parameters. We spent 2 years on making sure that ICANN’s mission was narrow and defined.
Berry Cobb
01:12:10
@Hadia, @Stephanie, can you lower your hands please.
Berry Cobb
01:12:30
Thank you.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:12:42
and ensuring mechanisms to ensure that ICANN stays within its misssion and only exercises its enumerated authority in respect of that mission
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:14:15
Sorry Berry, arthritis setting in….
Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:14:36
exactly Becky…We worked in CCWG to narrow the mission so it was clear and acceptable to all…
Brian King (IPC)
01:15:40
+1 Margie, send it to Bird & Bird
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:16:37
CCWG - that acronym brings back so many sweet memories :-)
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:17:08
@margie no we should go ahead with it. The EC said they are fine with it. We don not need to do anything more. lets go ahead with the purpose
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:17:24
lowering hand
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:17:32
There is no need to waste time and send it to Bird & Bird
Berry Cobb
01:17:52
@Georgios, you should mute your line and lower your hand please.
Berry Cobb
01:18:10
Thank you sir.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:18:38
And by the way the ALAC wanted more specificity and we are now agreeing to this because it is what we could agree too
Margie Milam (BC)
01:18:57
@Amr- I sent numerous emails about it in Phase 2
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:20:20
the problem with the specificity was that it conflated third party purposes with ICANN’s
Berry Cobb
01:22:26
@Hadia, can you lower your hand please.
Berry Cobb
01:22:42
Thank you.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:24:48
I am not even clear what wording we are discussing now,
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:25:55
This is the email from Kurt I was referring to: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2018-September/000281.html
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:27:17
@Milton yes you are correct but during phase 1 NCSG was willing to accept the broad term and the other stakeholder groups wanted the specificity ( which was not correct)
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:27:46
I am dropping and Sarah is taking my place…thanks
Terri Agnew
01:27:55
Noted, thanks Matt
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:28:04
We only agreed to Purpose 2 in phase 1 as a placeholder for further work, and also as a compromise, which ultimately didn’t work out.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:28:47
Yes, IPC and BC rejected the compromise, if you recall
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:29:30
As I said, we need plenty of time to review what ICANN org comes up with.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:30:38
Would appreciate if this can be provided in .doc format as well as .pdf for ease of team review, thank you.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:32:32
Thank you Caitlin!
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:32:33
+1 Stephanie
Brian King (IPC)
01:32:59
pdf has authoritative line numbers, got it
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:33:01
Hmm…, we’re kinda busy with other stuff right now, including preparing our input to the phase 2 initial report public comment period. Although I don’t expect that we will have any issues with any of the text (except for purpose 2).
Brian King (IPC)
01:33:08
Thank you to staff!
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:33:16
none
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:33:33
@Brian: +1. Thanks to staff in general. Have been working tirelessly to help us out!!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:34:57
@Amr the email you are referring to was in September 2018 - at a very early stage of our discussions. After this many discussions happened and we moved ahead with the purpose put forward and the specific - conflating part was upon the request of the other stakeholder groups
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:35:44
@Hadia: At what point in phase 1 did we explore ICANN’s mission in the context of SSR?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:36:15
@Hadia: I’m also still waiting for the details you said existed in ICANN’s mission/bylaws. ;-)
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:36:44
@Amr we certainly had discussions in this regard whether we agreed or not is another matter
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:36:50
Let’s be clear here Hadia…one cannot just read things in to the words in the bylaws. It requires a full discussion, review and analysis. Hence my constant insistence on a full PIA.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:37:22
@Hadia: When? Where? I pulled up an email from the archives easily enough. Please do the same.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:37:23
The nature of the precise processing needs to be examined.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:38:13
@Amr refer to the recordings of the F2F meetings during ICANN's meeting or others
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:38:46
So in the doc it says "forms" and these are the phases?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:38:56
(Should they perhaps be labelled as "phases" then?)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:39:33
@Hadia: That’s no more specific than purpose 2 is!! ;-)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:39:57
@Hadia: Could you at least share the conclusions of those discussion?
Daniel Halloran (ICANN Org Liaison)
01:41:29
Thanks Mark Sv. A few implementation questions on this from ICANN org:
Daniel Halloran (ICANN Org Liaison)
01:41:36
1. Is this recommendation intended to become of the policy, or is this implementation advice (strongly recommend the latter!).2. This says this may not apply to all use cases. What is supposed to be done with those to which these SLAs don’t apply? Who decides what use cases must follow these SLAs?3. This references a need for potential modifications. Would this be done through the “mcSSAD” or could ICANN do this based on lessons learned.4. This says that a breach of the SLAs would not necessarily be a breach of the RAA. Please explain?5. The proposed collaboration between the CP and ICANN to identify “the root cause” of issues with SLA compliance seems to be beyond the role of compliance? What is compliance expected to do here?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:43:22
@Amr the conclusion is the purpose we put forward. (With the NCSG agreeing to the broad part of it and the other groups pushing for more specificity now the opposite is happening)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:43:56
@Hadia: I’ve already explained why/how NCSG (grudgingly) agreed to purpose 2 in phase 1.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:45:44
@Volker: +1 on this resembling implementation advice.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:46:11
+2
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:51:50
+1 to the confusion difficulty
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:51:56
I had a hard time with it but I did find today's doc helped
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:56:16
Thank you Mark and Volker
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
01:57:06
have we moved to this as a test or just to allow you to spy easier :P
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:58:56
Need to drop a bit early today. Thanks all.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:01:09
Thank you all - bye for now
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:01:09
thanks all
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:01:09
cheers
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:01:10
Thanks all. Bye.
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:01:11
thanks all
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:01:17
thanks