The sun is shining, the birds are singing, what better to do than talking about accuracy?

that’s the same for everyone Amr

The link that Terri sent out by email, separate from the ical invite, let me in as a panelist

I had the same issue as Amr

I used my calendar link

it was a bit confusing but I was elevated to panelist very quickly so no problem

Same here

Thanks

@James: +1. Schedule this past week has been pretty chaotic.

Thank you, James

+1 James

Well said

+1 James

james +1

Thanks James

Thanks James

I came in at the tail end of that but heard support for my request yesterday….thanks!!!

Sounds good, my comment was really about moderating our statements here to respect the sacrifices folks are making to continue this work.

Good point, thanks James

The Council did not decalre it out of scope.

It is a matter of complexity and deliverying a final report by our plan.

It was encouraged by the Council to utilize budget while we have it now to better inform future deliberations around this topic.

+1 Berry

Apologies for the mis-spellings.

I can clear it up

No thanks, Brian, let’s have an impartial person do it

Reminder to all, please select all panelists and attendees for chat option.

yes, de-coupled may be more precise then “out of scope”

So “at Council level” means it is out f scope for this EPDP

Yep

Becky: “decoupled” is a good way to put it. thanks

Nothing more to add from me, Janis.

very hard to hear Marc

@Marc, we can understand you, but less than clear.

sorry for being late

Does someone have the link handy?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VwslSx0RKXQjf_eJFvQNQ3V0M_37sELl/edit#

thanks

for some reason I cannot figure out how to raise my hand

ahah

hand raise

“might” get a different answer? ;D

I can't raise my hand

sorry I acn

can

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,

click on the participants icon at the bottom of the list of participants is an “unmute me” and a “raise hand” button

going to the bylaws to construe this is not legally permissible to fix it

The Bylaws are not a task list!

Precisely, Thomas.

HAND

Please

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

@Thomas: Exactly!!

sorry for the typos. too big fingers fir ppp

for a handheld:-)

@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).

@Thomas et all, Are you saying that the Purpose 2 proposed by the Commission is illegal?

@Milton: +1

I will speak to that, Alan

I’m often illogical. :-)

@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

@Stephanie: +1

@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

*you are

@Hadia: If you could point me in the direction of the details in ICANN’s mission/bylaws, I’d happily stand corrected.

@Thomas: +1

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.

@Hadia, @Stephanie, can you lower your hands please.

Thank you.

and ensuring mechanisms to ensure that ICANN stays within its misssion and only exercises its enumerated authority in respect of that mission

Sorry Berry, arthritis setting in….

exactly Becky…We worked in CCWG to narrow the mission so it was clear and acceptable to all…

+1 Margie, send it to Bird & Bird

CCWG - that acronym brings back so many sweet memories :-)

@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

lowering hand

There is no need to waste time and send it to Bird & Bird

@Georgios, you should mute your line and lower your hand please.

Thank you sir.

And by the way the ALAC wanted more specificity and we are now agreeing to this because it is what we could agree too

@Amr- I sent numerous emails about it in Phase 2

the problem with the specificity was that it conflated third party purposes with ICANN’s

@Hadia, can you lower your hand please.

Thank you.

I am not even clear what wording we are discussing now,

This is the email from Kurt I was referring to: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2018-September/000281.html

@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)

I am dropping and Sarah is taking my place…thanks

Noted, thanks Matt

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.

Yes, IPC and BC rejected the compromise, if you recall

As I said, we need plenty of time to review what ICANN org comes up with.

Would appreciate if this can be provided in .doc format as well as .pdf for ease of team review, thank you.

Thank you Caitlin!

+1 Stephanie

pdf has authoritative line numbers, got it

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).

Thank you to staff!

none

@Brian: +1. Thanks to staff in general. Have been working tirelessly to help us out!!

@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

@Hadia: At what point in phase 1 did we explore ICANN’s mission in the context of SSR?

@Hadia: I’m also still waiting for the details you said existed in ICANN’s mission/bylaws. ;-)

@Amr we certainly had discussions in this regard whether we agreed or not is another matter

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.

@Hadia: When? Where? I pulled up an email from the archives easily enough. Please do the same.

The nature of the precise processing needs to be examined.

@Amr refer to the recordings of the F2F meetings during ICANN's meeting or others

So in the doc it says "forms" and these are the phases?

(Should they perhaps be labelled as "phases" then?)

@Hadia: That’s no more specific than purpose 2 is!! ;-)

@Hadia: Could you at least share the conclusions of those discussion?

Thanks Mark Sv. A few implementation questions on this from ICANN org:

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?

@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)

@Hadia: I’ve already explained why/how NCSG (grudgingly) agreed to purpose 2 in phase 1.

@Volker: +1 on this resembling implementation advice.

+2

+1 to the confusion difficulty

I had a hard time with it but I did find today's doc helped

Thank you Mark and Volker

have we moved to this as a test or just to allow you to spy easier :P

Need to drop a bit early today. Thanks all.

Thank you all - bye for now

thanks all

cheers

Thanks all. Bye.

thanks all

thanks