Well, I usually forget, so thanks for the reminder

Thomas will be delayed and join in the second half

done

Hello all

Hi all.

May the final draft of questions be shared on-list?

Yes, of course, will do

Thanks, Becky.

So the proposal would be for this PDP to continue on after Phase 2?

@Matt: Or after the addendum to phase 2 has been published?

How can we bump two of the most difficult issues to a small group? And treat is as a comment?

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?

@Janis: Yes, there was.

@Milton: +1.

The small group may consider looking at the legal advice we have paid for.

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?

@Volker: +1

@Amr, we have a new input in legal advice from Bird & Bird

+1 Milton and Volker

We may be hopelessly deadlocked on the topic, but since this is a charter issue it must be mentioned somewhere in our report

@MarkSV: +1

It will suffice to indicate that we are hopelessly deadlocked.

@Stephanie: +1

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

Minority Reports are to be attached to FINAL reports after consensus calls.

ok

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.

Which I will remind you has been very much impacted by the current COVID19 state of emergency.

it’s true, this is totally a policy difference

At least for some of us. Lucky are they who have not been impacted.

Dissent opinions can be expressed in the public comment.

We agreed on Tuesday that no group opinions would be included in this intial report and any disagreements would be done in the proceeding.

@Berry: True, but we also agreed that dissenting/minority statements will be included in the final report, correct?

is there some reason why the dissent has to be in initial report rather than final report?

Please double check

Well said Rafik!

No corona I hope?

Not so far, but we are not testing the relatively healthy.

Link to PDP manual. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-2-pdp-manual-24oct19-en.pdf

If the decision to NOT work on some items is not a CONSENSUS, why is it in the report?????????????????????????

@Janis, based on what you just read, there wasn't mention of requirement for dissents to be in Final Report?

This Addendum publication has a consensus designation so we have the right to submit a dissenting opinion

hey, I’d like to form a small group that will promote the idea of ending this EPDP next week

The Addendum does not have a consensus designation. It states preliminary conclusion.

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.

+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

@Berry @Caitlin: +1. On that basis, the NCSG agreed to have its minority statement on purpose 2 removed from the initial report.

As Marc is pointing out right now. :-)

+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

I am afraid I have to leave, could you please promote David Cake to my spot as a panelist.

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

@Marc: +1

There was this whole discussion about “narratives” on Tuesday, and we reached the conclusions Marc just reminded us of.

@Stephanie, we have adjusted David to member for rest of meeting.

There is no consensus decision though. There is a lack of a decision

this is a waste of time. Be adults and accept the fact that you don’t have support for your position

@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.

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

@Laureen: LOL

thank you for the constructive suggestion, Laureen

That seems fine Laureen

I'm fine with Laureen's proposed edit.

I’m good with Laureen’s proposal too. Suggests potential options, but commits to nothing specific, which I believe is appropriate at this point.

indeed, the SSAD is what we are supposed to be completing

Janis+1

@Janis: I’m fine with closing this conversation…, permanently. ;-)

Amen Amr!

Yes, Hadia, you are right.

Hadia is correct…that is from Phase 1 of our work

@ 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.

And that compromise was able to get a consensus in phase 1. Best tell your ALAC colleagues not to mess with it

Always so plucky Milton.

oh come on, Margie.

But it has been considered

No

Just not the way you wanted

exactly, let’s just move on

I need more coffee

@Janis: +1

If we are to include our diverging opinions, I request a postponement of one corona confinement (two weeks) to craft ours

YES

@Janis: Please!!

Yes, that’s a Laureen laugh :-)

Have to keep a sense of humor -- my primary survival tactic.

Indeed, Laureen

+1 Margie

@Laureen: Personally, I’d rather you stay unmuted. Have been enjoying it so far. :-)

Unless wasting our time on this is the objective

was it not reviewed by the legal committee?

that's better - thanks

There is also a Phase I memo on Legal Natural . . . are we omitting that?

@Milton: +1

that's fine

I wouldn't object to that actually, Milton

How can policy issues NOT be influenced by legal opinions!

That's fine

For clarity and accuracy, this Conclusion should start, "While legal advice indicates that Registrant Data for legal persons may be published..."

Alan: Just because something is legally possible does not mean it is good policy

@Volker: +1

@Volker, sure, but that is not what was said.

I said that

@AlanG: That’s exactly what we’ve been saying!!

The people who wrote the law think it is for the best to make this distinction.

Our definitions of "good policy" obviously differ.

I need to depart the call now and Sarah Wyld will be taking over for me…thanks Sarah!

Thanks Matt

@Hadia: The people who wrote the law have been discussing gTLD registration data policies, and have opinions on them?!

@AlanG: +1 on your last statement in the chat. :-)

The edits were to remove "also" and change "MAY" to "may", right?

I don’t get the difference between “may” and “MAY”.

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

(so it's lower-case)

+1 Sarah

+1 Sarah

Apologies I need to be in another meeting

yes - thank you Marc

yes

im ok

I can highlight that as part of my prezo.

The comment period ends May 5th

Excel FTW!

heck yeah

Oh I am nerding out on this hard. How cool

@MarkSV: LOL

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.

Hermes has too much time on their hands

Am having some connectivity issues. Will rejoin in a couple of minutes.

Kudos staff great work!

indeed

3 hours is doable, but perhaps we can build in a 10-minute break for human needs

fantastic job, Berry

+1 to breaks halfway through if we do a 3 hour meeting

big thank you to staff

+1 Brian on both points

our staff support team rocks!

$4.99 https://www.name.com/domain/search/icannstaff.rocks

@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.

thanks Amp!

amr

Great Work thanks

@AlanW: +1 on all counts.

@MarkSV: That’s fair.

Glad to be reasonable in light of the unprecedented coronavirus, and grateful to our colleagues who continue to work hard to come to consensus

On the third bullet, if it’s simply a review of implementation, can’t a GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) serve as an acceptable mechanism?

haha, AlanG, you make a good impersonation of me :-)

i thought I had a subscription to making that point

AlanG: Agree completely, but am concerned that to do this, we’ll need an additional year!!

And in both instances …. the CPH continues to have liability ……

No Alan, afraid not how it works

you can allocate funtional responsibilities!

Thomas +1

Although there remains some ambiguity in this particular case in AlanW's defense

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 -

and yes, the CPs are still liable, but we can work on a schedule of responsibilities between ICANN and the CPs

@Thomas, to be clear, if the agreement allocated responsibility, does that also imply liabilities in the case of incorrect decisions?

@AlanW, that is the point of ambiguity. That is not established fact

And therefore ………….

I think at tTHIS point, we have to assume there will be CP liability and they need to be "comfortable" with additional automation.

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?

Well said Alan W.

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

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

ah. that was in response to alan g

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)

@AlanW: THANK YOU!!

I need to drop on the hour all.

@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.

+1 Thomas

@Amr and @Margie, hence why the Policy & Implementation group was formed that created things like this EPDP and the GGP.

@Berry: Exactly!!

Have to leave for another meeting, thanks all and stay well

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.

+1 MarkSv

+1 MarkSV

Mark - if you ave a problem with that .. .then you need to rewrite data protection law.

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

Not true.

We might not be ‘competent’ - but it is our legal obligation.

Also lets not make policy that assumes breach ….

That remains to be determined

Thanks all

Thanks, all

Thank you all and bye

Thanks all. Bye.

Thanks