Logo

EPDP-Phase 2 team call - Shared screen with speaker view
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
33:04
Well, I usually forget, so thanks for the reminder
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
33:26
Thomas will be delayed and join in the second half
zzzOlga Cavalli (GAC - Alternate)
33:28
done
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
34:21
Hello all
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
34:42
Hi all.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
37:22
May the final draft of questions be shared on-list?
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
37:46
Yes, of course, will do
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
37:51
Thanks, Becky.
Matt Serlin (RrSG- joining first hour)
42:40
So the proposal would be for this PDP to continue on after Phase 2?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
43:34
@Matt: Or after the addendum to phase 2 has been published?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
44:48
How can we bump two of the most difficult issues to a small group? And treat is as a comment?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
45:23
Let me be clear, is this where we have arrived on this, or is the GNSO going to be deal with these two intractable issues?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
46:05
@Janis: Yes, there was.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
48:24
@Milton: +1.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
48:45
The small group may consider looking at the legal advice we have paid for.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
49:27
Also…, unless there is new input, I don’t see what this small group will be able to achieve. We’ve exhausted this topic to death, haven’t we?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
50:05
@Volker: +1
Brian King (IPC)
50:16
@Amr, we have a new input in legal advice from Bird & Bird
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
50:29
+1 Milton and Volker
Mark Svancarek (BC)
51:08
We may be hopelessly deadlocked on the topic, but since this is a charter issue it must be mentioned somewhere in our report
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
51:19
@MarkSV: +1
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
51:33
It will suffice to indicate that we are hopelessly deadlocked.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
51:41
@Stephanie: +1
Mark Svancarek (BC)
52:52
It’s unfortunate that text explaining the differences of opinions on the and other topics will not appear in the addendum. Isn't that a change on process? Asking for a friend
Berry Cobb
52:58
Minority Reports are to be attached to FINAL reports after consensus calls.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
53:11
ok
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
53:14
I would add that we in all likelihood have different interpretations of the legal advice we are receiving at this late date. Had this EPDP taken the advice of the NCSG who recommended dedicated legal advice early on, we would not be in this rather desperate situation.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
53:45
Which I will remind you has been very much impacted by the current COVID19 state of emergency.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
54:12
it’s true, this is totally a policy difference
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
54:47
At least for some of us. Lucky are they who have not been impacted.
Berry Cobb
55:09
Dissent opinions can be expressed in the public comment.
Berry Cobb
55:49
We agreed on Tuesday that no group opinions would be included in this intial report and any disagreements would be done in the proceeding.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
56:32
@Berry: True, but we also agreed that dissenting/minority statements will be included in the final report, correct?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
56:55
is there some reason why the dissent has to be in initial report rather than final report?
Margie Milam (BC)
56:56
Please double check
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
57:35
Well said Rafik!
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
57:54
No corona I hope?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
58:54
Not so far, but we are not testing the relatively healthy.
Berry Cobb
59:11
Link to PDP manual. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-2-pdp-manual-24oct19-en.pdf
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
59:28
If the decision to NOT work on some items is not a CONSENSUS, why is it in the report?????????????????????????
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
59:36
@Janis, based on what you just read, there wasn't mention of requirement for dissents to be in Final Report?
Margie Milam (BC)
59:40
This Addendum publication has a consensus designation so we have the right to submit a dissenting opinion
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:00:42
hey, I’d like to form a small group that will promote the idea of ending this EPDP next week
Berry Cobb
01:00:55
The Addendum does not have a consensus designation. It states preliminary conclusion.
Caitlin Tubergen
01:01:07
Please note the Addendum states: At the time of publication of this addendum, no formal consensus call has been taken on these responses and preliminary recommendations; however, this addendum to the Initial Report did receive the support of the EPDP Team for publication for public comment.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:01:49
+1 Berry and Caitlin. I am at a loss to understand why this insistence on a dissent in an initial report when they will have every chance to express their dissent later
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:03:39
@Berry @Caitlin: +1. On that basis, the NCSG agreed to have its minority statement on purpose 2 removed from the initial report.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:03:47
As Marc is pointing out right now. :-)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:03:50
+1 Berry and Caitlin. I am at a loss to understand why this insistence on a dissent in an initial report when they will have every chance to express their dissent later
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:03:57
I am afraid I have to leave, could you please promote David Cake to my spot as a panelist.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:04:02
Tactics, Milton. It gives them the opportunity to dominate the discussion in the public comments as their opinion will be presented in the most breadth
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:04:04
@Marc: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:04:27
There was this whole discussion about “narratives” on Tuesday, and we reached the conclusions Marc just reminded us of.
Terri Agnew
01:04:34
@Stephanie, we have adjusted David to member for rest of meeting.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:05:57
There is no consensus decision though. There is a lack of a decision
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:06:11
this is a waste of time. Be adults and accept the fact that you don’t have support for your position
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:06:14
@AlanG: That was not my understanding. NCSG was the only group objecting to the draft recommendation on purpose 2, and we agreed to have our dissenting statement removed pending the publication of the final report.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:07:22
NCSG was NOT the only group that didn’t like Purpose 2. Others were just willing to move ahead. Wish ALAC and IPC/BC would show the same maturity
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:08:32
@Laureen: LOL
Brian King (IPC)
01:10:00
thank you for the constructive suggestion, Laureen
Matt Serlin (RrSG- joining first hour)
01:10:43
That seems fine Laureen
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:11:31
I'm fine with Laureen's proposed edit.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:11:37
I’m good with Laureen’s proposal too. Suggests potential options, but commits to nothing specific, which I believe is appropriate at this point.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:12:48
indeed, the SSAD is what we are supposed to be completing
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:12:57
Janis+1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:13:13
@Janis: I’m fine with closing this conversation…, permanently. ;-)
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:13:29
Amen Amr!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:13:30
Yes, Hadia, you are right.
Matt Serlin (RrSG- joining first hour)
01:13:36
Hadia is correct…that is from Phase 1 of our work
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:13:38
@ Milton -- I understand your point. I think there is a modest hope that that a small group may be able to make progress on the Natural/Legal issues-- progress that might achieve consensus. If not, then of course, the issue will remain unresolved.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:13:54
And that compromise was able to get a consensus in phase 1. Best tell your ALAC colleagues not to mess with it
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:14:11
Always so plucky Milton.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:15:35
oh come on, Margie.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:15:37
But it has been considered
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:15:44
No
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:15:49
Just not the way you wanted
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:17:10
exactly, let’s just move on
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:17:45
I need more coffee
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:17:53
@Janis: +1
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:18:00
If we are to include our diverging opinions, I request a postponement of one corona confinement (two weeks) to craft ours
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:18:37
YES
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:18:44
@Janis: Please!!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:18:56
Yes, that’s a Laureen laugh :-)
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:19:09
Have to keep a sense of humor -- my primary survival tactic.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:20:19
Indeed, Laureen
Brian King (IPC)
01:20:35
+1 Margie
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:20:42
@Laureen: Personally, I’d rather you stay unmuted. Have been enjoying it so far. :-)
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:23:19
Unless wasting our time on this is the objective
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:24:46
was it not reviewed by the legal committee?
Margie Milam (BC)
01:25:04
that's better - thanks
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
01:25:06
There is also a Phase I memo on Legal Natural . . . are we omitting that?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:25:23
@Milton: +1
Margie Milam (BC)
01:25:44
that's fine
Brian King (IPC)
01:25:48
I wouldn't object to that actually, Milton
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:25:55
How can policy issues NOT be influenced by legal opinions!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:25:59
That's fine
Brian King (IPC)
01:26:29
For clarity and accuracy, this Conclusion should start, "While legal advice indicates that Registrant Data for legal persons may be published..."
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:26:33
Alan: Just because something is legally possible does not mean it is good policy
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:26:43
@Volker: +1
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:26:59
@Volker, sure, but that is not what was said.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:27:10
I said that
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:27:18
@AlanG: That’s exactly what we’ve been saying!!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:28:02
The people who wrote the law think it is for the best to make this distinction.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:28:20
Our definitions of "good policy" obviously differ.
Matt Serlin (RrSG- joining first hour)
01:28:48
I need to depart the call now and Sarah Wyld will be taking over for me…thanks Sarah!
zzzSarah Wyld (RrSG- Alt - joining second portion)
01:28:54
Thanks Matt
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:28:55
@Hadia: The people who wrote the law have been discussing gTLD registration data policies, and have opinions on them?!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:29:44
@AlanG: +1 on your last statement in the chat. :-)
Sarah Wyld (RrSG- Alt - joining second portion)
01:30:36
The edits were to remove "also" and change "MAY" to "may", right?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:31:00
I don’t get the difference between “may” and “MAY”.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG- Alt - joining second portion)
01:31:27
Amr - I think i'ts because we're not setting out a requirement (it may do this thing) but just explaining that this thing might happen
Sarah Wyld (RrSG- Alt - joining second portion)
01:31:36
(so it's lower-case)
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:32:49
+1 Sarah
Brian King (IPC)
01:32:57
+1 Sarah
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:33:07
Apologies I need to be in another meeting
Margie Milam (BC)
01:34:17
yes - thank you Marc
Margie Milam (BC)
01:34:51
yes
Margie Milam (BC)
01:34:58
im ok
Berry Cobb
01:36:33
I can highlight that as part of my prezo.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:38:32
The comment period ends May 5th
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:45:33
Excel FTW!
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:45:45
heck yeah
Brian King (IPC)
01:46:13
Oh I am nerding out on this hard. How cool
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:47:49
@MarkSV: LOL
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:48:57
Hope that we will be able to review the summaries in a format that is large enough to see (for the over 40 set). Excel is great for organizing but not very easy to read.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:49:09
Hermes has too much time on their hands
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:53:39
Am having some connectivity issues. Will rejoin in a couple of minutes.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:55:57
Kudos staff great work!
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:58:57
indeed
Brian King (IPC)
01:59:02
3 hours is doable, but perhaps we can build in a 10-minute break for human needs
Brian King (IPC)
01:59:07
fantastic job, Berry
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:59:12
+1 to breaks halfway through if we do a 3 hour meeting
Brian King (IPC)
01:59:13
big thank you to staff
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:59:48
+1 Brian on both points
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:59:55
our staff support team rocks!
Brian King (IPC)
02:01:02
$4.99 https://www.name.com/domain/search/icannstaff.rocks
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:01:24
@Margie: We can certainly try to do that, whenever possible, but there might be broader SG concerns we might not be able to address until they are submitted.
Margie Milam (BC)
02:02:13
thanks Amp!
Margie Milam (BC)
02:02:16
amr
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:03:18
Great Work thanks
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:04:40
@AlanW: +1 on all counts.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:06:17
@MarkSV: That’s fair.
Brian King (IPC)
02:07:30
Glad to be reasonable in light of the unprecedented coronavirus, and grateful to our colleagues who continue to work hard to come to consensus
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:13:39
On the third bullet, if it’s simply a review of implementation, can’t a GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) serve as an acceptable mechanism?
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
02:19:01
haha, AlanG, you make a good impersonation of me :-)
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
02:19:22
i thought I had a subscription to making that point
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:19:27
AlanG: Agree completely, but am concerned that to do this, we’ll need an additional year!!
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:19:47
And in both instances …. the CPH continues to have liability ……
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:19:59
No Alan, afraid not how it works
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
02:20:30
you can allocate funtional responsibilities!
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:20:47
Thomas +1
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:21:18
Although there remains some ambiguity in this particular case in AlanW's defense
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:21:47
Absolutely - but the liability will follow where as a Joint controller, we are not sure that such a functional responsibility his being carried out in a proper, legal manner -
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
02:21:57
and yes, the CPs are still liable, but we can work on a schedule of responsibilities between ICANN and the CPs
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:22:00
@Thomas, to be clear, if the agreement allocated responsibility, does that also imply liabilities in the case of incorrect decisions?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:22:31
@AlanW, that is the point of ambiguity. That is not established fact
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:22:51
And therefore ………….
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:23:44
I think at tTHIS point, we have to assume there will be CP liability and they need to be "comfortable" with additional automation.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:24:02
If we are creating a policy, and removing the ability of contracted parties to control our own liability - surely that ambiguity is exactly why we have to ensure we retain that control … no?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:24:14
Well said Alan W.
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
02:24:26
you can have an internal arrangement on holding harmless the party that suffered from another parties’ wrongdoing. we should have insurance / a risk fund for that
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:24:40
Just saying, it is not established fact. It may be prudent for you to protect yourself against the worst case, but we should not state unequivocally that it is a known fact at this time
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
02:24:41
ah. that was in response to alan g
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:26:19
And I agree with you on that Thomas - but we are also trying to create a system that is built on Data Subject Rights and not just the protection of the CPH coffers (yes that is an important aspect for us) but we must ensure that our approach is not just circumventing the true focus here - the registrant’s rights (be they legal or policy)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:26:45
@AlanW: THANK YOU!!
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:30:53
I need to drop on the hour all.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:31:09
@Margie: Honestly…, I think that model was not a good one at all. Lots of aspects of the new gTLD Program that qualify as policy development were done outside of proper processes. I would not think this is something we should be recommending.
Margie Milam (BC)
02:31:11
+1 Thomas
Berry Cobb
02:31:51
@Amr and @Margie, hence why the Policy & Implementation group was formed that created things like this EPDP and the GGP.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:32:03
@Berry: Exactly!!
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:32:17
Have to leave for another meeting, thanks all and stay well
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:32:18
I object to the representation that all CPs are competent deciders and have best interest of data subject in mind and that all requestors are incompetent and/or will disregard data subject rights. That seems to be the assumption that whenever "data subject rights" are put forward as a reason to reject various practical solutions which seem to be allowed under the regulation.
Brian King (IPC)
02:32:31
+1 MarkSv
Margie Milam (BC)
02:32:41
+1 MarkSV
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:32:47
Mark - if you ave a problem with that .. .then you need to rewrite data protection law.
Berry Cobb
02:32:48
7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes):a) Tuesday 31 March at 14.00 UTC. Topics to be addressed: Continued discussion of mechanism for the evolution of SSAD, reporting requirements.b) Confirm action itemsc) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:33:02
Not true.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:33:16
We might not be ‘competent’ - but it is our legal obligation.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:33:53
Also lets not make policy that assumes breach ….
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:33:55
That remains to be determined
Brian King (IPC)
02:34:10
Thanks all
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:34:16
Thanks, all
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:34:27
Thank you all and bye
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:34:34
Thanks all. Bye.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:34:43
Thanks