Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2 Team Call - Shared screen with speaker view
Andrea Glandon
40:23
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Berry Cobb
48:45
Link to Goog Doc of Cat1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16BICriVfOPiEeve4A-x6TYKPbgRKqvhX/edit
Mark Svancarek (BC)
49:57
digesting
Marc Anderson (RySG)
50:19
digesting, and discussing who among our group will speak
Marika Konings
50:21
Proposed language would be: “• 9.4 Per the legal guidance obtained (see here), the EPDP Team recommends that the following types of disclosure requests, for which legal permissibility has been indicated under GDPR for full automation (in-take as well as processing of disclosure decision), MUST be automated from the start:””
Marika Konings
50:39
• Possible footnote that would state: “The EPDP team notes that the advice received was based on several specific underlying assumptions and any derogation from such conditions may affects the validity of the advice received”.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
55:43
+1 Marc
Alan Woods (RySG)
57:42
Nobody said we would not rely on to. What we are saying is that the policy cannot state categorically what is liege or not.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
57:44
In other words, as we have pointed out before, MUST automate is not a directive that I support. I have not had a minute to caucus with colleagues on this matter.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
57:59
Under current ICANN contracts, it is indeed left to each contracted party to determine what is legal for that contracted party. ICANN policy cannot overrule that.
Alan Woods (RySG)
58:10
ugh - trying again without typos … Nobody said we would not rely on it. What we are saying is that the policy cannot state categorically what is legal or not.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
58:20
+1 Alan
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
58:30
+1 Alan
Marika Konings
59:34
The proposed language says: “for which legal permissibility has been indicated under GDPR for full automation”.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:00:24
I again worry that we are creating policy that is specifically tied to GDPR with references like that
Marika Konings
01:01:04
As a reminder, there is also 9.5 under which a CP can notify of an exemption.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:01:12
What if a contracted party is in a jurisdiction that has privacy laws that specifically prohibit the automation of data disclosure?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:01:28
+1 Marc
Marika Konings
01:01:51
@Matt - in that case, a CP will invoke 9.5.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:02:29
+1 Marc
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:03:48
I’m sorry. I’m not sure how referring to art 44-49 equates to compliance with art 44-49?
Marika Konings
01:04:00
Proposed language would be: “• 9.4 Per the legal guidance obtained (see here), the EPDP Team recommends that the following types of disclosure requests, for which legal permissibility has been indicated under GDPR for full automation (in-take as well as processing of disclosure decision), MUST be automated from the start:””
• Possible footnote that would state: “The EPDP team notes that the advice received was based on several specific underlying assumptions and any derogation from such conditions may affects the validity of the advice received”.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:05:28
Yes Hadia therefore you agrees with us. Absolute statement of legal permissibility should not be in the recommendation.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:05:46
Well said Alan
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:06:00
Everything is possible. Extent of associated risk of liability is the issue, and as far as I can tell, that’s what the RySG is trying to have reflected in the final report.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:07:55
I am very curious as to how anyone sees this “MUST” requirement being implemented. If a contracted party fails to automate, what happens next, who investigates, and who pays for that investigation?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:08:17
Investigations cost money.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:08:53
What is involved here is external parties second guessing controllers, particularly risky when we are talking about different jurisdictions.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:09:07
old hand from me
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:09:31
@Alan W reference to the possible legality as determined by Bird &Bird is important also we need to remember that based on this Bird & Bird memo we have also dismissed many other cases
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:10:11
Because interpretation of legal memos allow us to assess risk - not absolute.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:10:37
We deemed there was a risk, highlights by the memo therefore better to err on the side of NOT breaking the law .
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:10:42
We didn’t need an absolute to make that call.
Marika Konings
01:11:09
@Alan W. - if “for which legal permissibility has been indicated’ does not do it, do you have a suggestion of what would work for the RySG?
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:11:15
That is completely different from stating the memo has concluded that it IS legally permissible - It says it is likely permissible - and we have accepted this.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:11:54
(Sorry Marika - responding to Hadia - I am much happier with your suggestion.)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:12:43
@Owen: +1
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:13:12
But the RYSG issue remains that 2 pillars of financial and technical feasibility (which may very well be captured elsewhere - but we need to be sure that it is ) must also be considered
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:14:46
Did you say automated with manual intervention? Aren’t those two in opposition?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:15:29
@Matt: That’s what confused me too.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:15:32
Including investigation of complaints. Lets remember that if automation is truly possible and low risk, it is predominantly in the interests of the data controller to automate it. Why can we not leave it at that, folks? Investigate the chaps who automate to a “no” response in due time, as acting in bad faith, and stop fighting over an issue where the legal certainty cannot be resolved in a policy.
Marika Konings
01:15:34
@Alan W. Please see footnote 32 & 33 which talks about commercial and technical feasibility.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:16:26
+1 Alan
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:17:31
Let’s just remove the “automation” part, because it includes manual review.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:17:45
+1 Owen
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:19:00
@Owen, unfortunately we have explicitely defined "automation" as possibly being human-assisted. It makes no sense semantically, but that is what we did.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:19:12
Also don’t agree to automation with these use cases, and like Owen said, I thought we settled this when we were discussing all the use cases MarkSV presented to the Team.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:21:01
Allocate responsibility?
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:21:14
Are we truly back to that?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:21:25
Do we know that ICANN is willing to assume this responsibility?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:21:54
It seems like we are so late in the game to be trying to iron this out and include this centralization
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:22:31
@Matt: +1
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:22:47
+1 Matt
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:24:47
The ECJ just gave the DPAs a rather stern admonition to do their jobs. I would suggest that “authoritative advice” coming out of any Brussels engagement in which ICANN has been taking part, with or without EPDP input, is not to be relied upon.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:24:55
+1 Matt
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:25:20
I believe the RrSG continues to object to the deletion of the text
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:27:05
Not ok with deleting this section.
Marika Konings
01:30:30
The blame is always on staff ;-)
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:30:37
Thanks Amr!
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:31:29
My point was to object to the deletion as well, just in case I was too brief.
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:33:58
I also need to step away for Hour Two; Ben Butler will cover for SSAC during my gap.
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:36:21
no protection is unacceptable. GDPR must be bottom line for all registrants
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:37:08
+1 Thomas. And EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:37:35
Thank you Amr!
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:37:54
Excellent explanation of the Problems Amr.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:38:12
Where is the revised language posted?
Margie Milam (BC)
01:38:18
Can we see the language
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:38:23
ok
Marika Konings
01:38:30
it was an attachment
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:38:32
emailed by Marika
Margie Milam (BC)
01:46:01
+1 Alan G
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:46:52
the epdp team grudingly accepts...?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:47:02
@AlanG: There’s still outstanding work on legal vs natural.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:47:41
let’s see whether the work will be outstanding or horrible like a root canal
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:49:02
I will need more time to review/discuss- a 5 minute break during a call is not sufficient to consider these changes.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:49:28
+1 Owen. Some of us were still asleep when this was sent :-)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:51:36
@AlanG: I did say that I did not understand the substantive nature of what you were proposing, so was not my intention to put words in your mouth. Apologies, and thanks for the clarification. It was quite helpful.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:52:27
@Laureen, and I am fine with that.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:52:48
@Laureen: +1. There’s no update to the phase 1 rec on legal vs natural. I don’t see a need to point that out in this recommendation, but have no objection to it.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:53:28
Agree with Mark SV- we need to consider this further offline
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:53:42
I too was sleeping when this was shared
Marika Konings
01:53:46
we can add, per Laureen’s comment: “nor does it override the ability for Cps to differentiate between legal and natural persons as per rec #17.”?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:53:49
Yeah this rec is of critical importance to many so ask that we can reserve comment on the list…can’t agree or disagree on this call I don’t think
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:54:01
+1 Matt
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:54:04
@Marika: Sounds good.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:54:31
Maybe staff can share a Google doc of the proposed changes to Rec 8 for review after this call?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:54:34
@Marika, fine with that.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:56:08
@AlanW: +1
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:56:34
+1 Alan W
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:57:39
@Eleeza: Doesn’t the report specify GDPR as the only privacy law referenced in the report? Isn’t that helpful in narrowing down which law is referenced in terms of legal bases?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:57:43
+1 Rafik re sleeping!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:58:03
@Eleeza: Check line 263 in the draft final report?
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:58:11
+1 Marika
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:58:16
@AlanW: +1 again.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:58:26
We have said little or nothing about the rights of registrants. We certainly can decide in a policy that GDPR rights are a minimum, and provide those rights through this policy to the extent possible. We can even, in the absence of legally enforceable Charter rights, honour those rights in our procedures.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
02:00:50
To repeat, ICANN Compliance cannot overrule a contracted party’s determination. They do not do so now, and it’s no appropriate to do so in the future.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:01:24
@Stephanie as you know GDPR sets a high bar so yes it is our minimum but it is a very good minimum
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:02:29
@Margie: How would the requestor know what the data contains, if it’s redacted?
Margie Milam (BC)
02:04:02
There might be indications from the website itself
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:04:07
@Volker: +1
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:07:28
Org field does not need to be determinative - it's just a clue whether a subsequent reexamination is justified
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:07:43
It’s perfectly reasonable for the personal information of a natural person to be included in the registration data of a domain name held by an org. That’s a really low bar for seeking some kind of appeal or investigation by ICANN Compliance.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:08:09
the determination must lie with the cp
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:08:32
@AlanW: Yup. Pretty much.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
02:08:36
+1 Volker
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:08:51
Also +1 @Volker.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
02:09:04
Also +1 Alan W
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:11:31
Margie's concern seems to already be covered by 8.10
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:11:33
8.10. MAY file a reexamination request if it believes its request was improperly 1186 denied.
Margie Milam (BC)
02:11:47
The contracted party “reasonably” determines that ….
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:11:55
and 8.12
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:12:00
@Marc: Good point.
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:12:02
8.12. If a Requestor believes a Contracted Party is not complying with any of the 1194 requirements of this policy, the Requestor SHOULD notify ICANN Compliance 1195 further to the alert mechanism described in Recommendation #5 – Response 1196 Requirements.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:14:13
no objection from me.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:14:18
Seems ok
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:18:42
We’d continue to support MAY but not MUST as it seems too prescriptive and gets into management of how CP’s manage workflow
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:20:01
agree with Volker, do not support this change.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:20:18
@Stephanie if the CP is not respecting the rights of the registrants that makes it not in compliance with GDPR and subject to huge fines
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:21:01
@Laureen: Isn’t the obligation to not just deal with them first, but also to deal with them with tighter deadlines?
Marika Konings
02:22:08
@Stephanie - please see recommendation #11 SSAD Terms and Conditions.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:22:53
@Laureen: Understood. Thanks.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:23:34
@Stepahnie reporting this to a data protection authority is much better than reporting it to ICANN compliance
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:24:53
have CP withdrawn their objection?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:26:16
I think should would be acceptable
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:26:27
no, still don’t like it
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:26:50
Owen has to break the tie!
Margie Milam (BC)
02:27:13
+1 laureen
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:27:48
I have agreed to LOTs of things I don't like! And so has everyone else.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:28:01
@AlanG: Indeed.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:28:23
three categoeries, no more
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:28:38
everything else can evolved into the ssad later
Marika Konings
02:29:00
@Volker - there would not be an additional category, just a requirement to prioritize those priority 3 requests that are flagged as consumer protection issues.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
02:29:05
I’m OK with should. While some might think this is a simple sorting issue, registrars with millions of domain names have complicated tracking systems for these requests so it may not be easy to resort once a request is in process
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:29:54
Volker, would you accept such a queue-sorting requirement to be a non-policy issue under the evolution mechanism?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:30:03
so lets have 4 levels of priorities
Rafik Dammak (Chair)
02:30:03
@alanwoods I added you because we didn’t hear from RySG
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:30:14
@ Volker -- I'm ok with keeping 3 categories, just prioritizing within 3rd category.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:30:27
everyone would just call their issue consumer protection even trademark vioaltion can be argued to be consumer protection
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:30:41
This is simply an acknowledgement that queries from consumer protection orgs may warrant higher prioritization within the same Q.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:30:51
lets discuss that im the standing committee
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:31:16
@Laureen - I'd say "sorting" within the 3rd category, since the categories are themselves defined by "priority" level
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:31:47
@AlanW: +1
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
02:31:48
Completely agree with Alan W
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:32:21
It's not OK to say that we'll discuss it in the standing committee if we subsequently determine that the standing committee has no scope to address such issues
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:34:37
this also looks like a trap. what is the consequence to not doing this?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:34:56
and what will be the next category?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:35:22
The proposal simply helps ensure that consumer protection requests are not t he ones where the SLA is not met (rules allow some % to not be met).
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:35:26
we have three priorities, lets stick to those
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:35:52
Might we maintain a civil tone gents?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:36:01
The compromise is “should” instead of “may”, or something else?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:36:21
I didn’t think “should” was acceptable if I recall what Laureen had said...
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:36:23
+1 Amr, I am also not 100% clear on the compromise langauge
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:36:26
@Voker fine but lets make sure that consumer protection requests are answered within the determined SLA
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:36:29
“shall be permitted to” is the best i can agree to
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:37:07
@Rafik: Thanks. Got it.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:38:16
Describing prioritizing consumer protection requests as "strange" seems puzzling to me Alan W. Did I mishear?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:39:39
it is an entirely undefined term. at this stage, it is a catch-all that fits all requestors
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
02:46:08
The outage referred to by Margie had nothing to do with ICANN
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
02:50:22
I think my point is that there are many laws that do that
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:51:03
if there is a law, it does not need stating, right? because the law already exists
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
02:51:21
I'm not sure I agree that DSP is unique in that circumstance (there are entities like Operators of Essential Services under the same NIS regulation that have similar obligations)
Brian King (IPC)
02:55:13
I don't think DSP is unique in that circumstance either. I was unclear: in the enumerated list of purposes, "I have an obligation" is missing if we don't have the DSP point. Not that DSPs are necessarily unique in that regard.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:56:04
I think it’s fine to delete
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:56:44
@Marika: Right. +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:57:40
@Brian: That’s fair.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:57:49
+1 Brian
Caitlin Tubergen
03:02:26
Rec 6.3: The Contracted Party:• MAY reassign the priority level during the review of the request. For example, as a request is manually reviewed, the Contracted Party MAY note that although the priority is set as priority 2 (ICANN Administrative Proceeding), the request shows no evidence documenting an ICANN Administrative Proceeding such as a filed UDRP case, and accordingly, the request should be recategorized as Priority 3.• MUST communicate any recategorization to the Central Gateway Manager and Requestor.
Marika Konings
03:03:16
Note that the proposal is to leave 1 business day not to exceed 3 calendar days, but with the footnote
Brian King (IPC)
03:04:59
The problem is that cyberattacks peak during those holiday periods to maximize impact when the bad guys know that security response staff is on skeleton crew, so that's precisely when the need for urgent requests is highest.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:05:27
@Volker but we are talking urgent requests like life threatening issues
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:05:44
and we are talking about registration data
Margie Milam (BC)
03:06:11
Court orders take time - the registration data helps us resolve issues quickly without going to court and to identify other likely attacks
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
03:06:19
+1 Volker. I fail to see when simple disclosure of data is so urgent that it needs to be done in faster time. Report abuse, get the police, etc to deal with really urgent/problematic domains
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
03:06:53
Even for a large registrar that operates 24/7, it still takes time to review and consider disclosure requests
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:06:54
we just last week got an “urgent” disclosure request where law enforcement wanted the data of a user of a domain (not the registrant)
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:07:14
these will come into this queue too.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:07:28
5 is fine
Marika Konings
03:07:36
As a reminder: “The criteria to determine urgent requests is limited to circumstances that pose an imminent threat to life, serious bodily injury, critical infrastructure (online and offline) or child exploitation.”
Marika Konings
03:08:24
Also: “Abuse of urgent requests: Violations of the use of Urgent SSAD Requests will result in a response from the Central Gateway Manager to ensure that the 1024 requirements for Urgent SSAD Requests are known and met in the first instance, but repeated violations may result in the Central Gateway Manager suspending the ability to make urgent requests via the SSAD.”
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:08:47
that was for cat 2
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:08:57
this is a cannot live with
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:17:07
“should be consulted” or “may be offered the opportunity to comment” seems fine
Marika Konings
03:18:38
Do note that the proposed implementation is also posted for public comment.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:18:47
@AlanG: I suspect we can reach some kind of compromise along the lines of what you’re suggesting.
Brian King (IPC)
03:18:55
Compromise about to happen here
Brian King (IPC)
03:19:06
Buckle up
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:19:37
+1 to the combined proposals from Volker and Thomas.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
03:19:48
Fine with Volker and Thomas
Marika Konings
03:20:19
How about: “The prospective users of the SSAD, as determined based on the implementation of the accreditation process and Identity Providers to be used, should be consulted on setting usage fees for the SSAD. In particular, those potential SSAD requestors who are not part of the ICANN community must have the opportunity to comment.”
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:21:24
@Marika: That sounds good, but maybe add something along the lines of what Thomas said - that the IRT needs to be informed by SSAD users.
Alan Woods (RySG)
03:21:28
To remind: if there are issues with the fees that this service will have to charge … Phase I has also created a free version of the SSAD by way of undertaking by the CPS that they will review such disclosure requests. No charge there.
Ben Butler (SSAC)
03:22:04
+1 Amr
Marika Konings
03:23:04
Updated version: The prospective users of the SSAD, as determined based on the implementation of the accreditation process and Identity Providers to be used, should be consulted on setting usage fees for the SSAD. In particular, those potential SSAD requestors who are not part of the ICANN community must have the opportunity to comment and interact with the IRT. This input should help inform the IRT deliberations on this topic.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:23:29
@Marika: I think that works.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:23:37
novall you can eat buffet, please. that creates the wrong incentive
Ben Butler (SSAC)
03:23:51
Fine with this latest version
Marika Konings
03:24:20
This is additional language
Marika Konings
03:24:30
No changes to any other sections, as far as I understand.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
03:24:39
I need to drop a bit early today…thanks all!
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:26:33
I'm fine
Alan Woods (RySG)
03:33:35
Zero disagreement Stephanie.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:33:36
@Rafik on many occasions you have allowed more than one person from the same group to speak, so maty you please let us know your criteria so that we can adhere to it - thanks
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:33:49
*may
Marc Anderson (RySG)
03:34:25
Please note the phase 1 IRT meets at the top of the hour.
Marc Anderson (RySG)
03:34:51
going over causes a conflict for many of us who are also on the IRT
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
03:34:59
Re: IRT, I emailed Dennis that some of us may be late. I can stay.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:35:24
@Milton, correct. My mistake. Standing Comm. RECOMMENDATIONS
Marc Anderson (RySG)
03:35:33
Maybe if someone has Dennis on speed dial, he can be asked to postpone or reschedule the IRT call
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:36:05
This recommendation is only in relation to adding new cases to automation - it does not try to limit the ability of the standing committee
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:36:47
@Rafik thanks I shall wait for my turn
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:37:34
@Milto does each group get to speak only once?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:37:55
when did we agree to that each group speaks only once?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:38:26
When did we agree to each group speaking only once
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:39:00
Anyway this is a crucial issue for ALAC
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:39:28
speaking only once is critical?
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
03:39:36
@ Milton -- I think the goal is trying to get clarity on how new automated use cases will be addressed -- whether that is considered within the purview of the Standing Committee or not.
Margie Milam (BC)
03:39:52
Our request is consistent with the report
Mark Svancarek (BC)
03:40:07
Need to drop, carry on!
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:40:21
NEXT ITEM PLEASE!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:40:37
Lets see which groups object?
Alan Woods (RySG)
03:40:59
Rafik … are we agreeing with the Proposal or the addition?
Marc Anderson (RySG)
03:41:16
RySG objects
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
03:41:27
Then what is the objection to the proposed clarification? Is there a suggestion to improve the language to make it acceptable?
Margie Milam (BC)
03:42:05
that
Margie Milam (BC)
03:42:14
S not what the recommendation says
Marc Anderson (RySG)
03:42:50
I'm being told the start of the IRT has been delayed 30 minutes
Margie Milam (BC)
03:42:55
It only addresses specific topics as recognizing that they would not need further policy work
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:42:57
@Marika there is no objection to a change in language - this recommendation does not intend to make any chnages
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
03:43:02
We really do need sufficient time to work through the remaining important issues.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:43:06
tbh…, I don’t see the NCSG agreeing to these changes offline or online.
Marika Konings
03:43:34
I don’t think we are talking about the staff proposal, but about the proposed addition?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:43:37
no, it is booo, not booourns!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:43:48
All what we want is a confirmation in relation to the automation cases
Marc Anderson (RySG)
03:43:50
we agree with the staff proposal NOT to implement the proposed addition.
Alan Woods (RySG)
03:44:00
We agree with the Staff proposal - i.e. not add the language.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:44:00
same
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:44:14
@AlanG: Objecting to the ALAC/BC proposal. Agree with the staff proposal.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:45:08
For the record, it is not AlanG's proposal but the ALAC proposal.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
03:46:40
Given the importance of this issue to so many stakeholder groups, perhaps we should try to spend a bit more time offline to come up with something that's acceptable. I'm still not clear on the basis for the objections.
Brian King (IPC)
03:47:03
+1 Laureen
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:47:40
@Laureen agree, the recommendation does not propose anything new it just confirms what is agreed upon.
Margie Milam (BC)
03:47:46
+1 Alan G
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:53:53
@Milton Fees are one of them (presuming they are made in support of the policy we have written). There may be a host of other purely operation aspects of the SSAD.
Margie Milam (BC)
03:55:43
We support the ALAC request here
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:55:52
Yes. Objecting to the proposed change.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
03:56:01
GAC supports ALAC clarification.
Brian King (IPC)
03:56:02
We support ALAC request as well
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:56:22
I miss the agree/disagree features in AC rooms right now. ;-)
Marc Anderson (RySG)
03:57:02
RySG objects
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
03:57:09
Oops, forgot to include attendees- RrSG objects
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
03:58:18
Struggling to understand why K'ed parties should have veto over issues that do NOT affect their obligations.
Marika Konings
03:59:09
Additional call proposed for tomorrow at 14.30 UTC
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
04:01:28
Note that RySG has language in their proposal
Brian King (IPC)
04:02:41
Tomorrow's meeting?
Marika Konings
04:03:19
14.30 UTC
Brian King (IPC)
04:03:31
Thanks, Marika. How long?
Marika Konings
04:04:09
90 minutes
Marika Konings
04:04:29
@Alan - we have proposed to make specific which topics are not addressed and with the GNSO Council.
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
04:04:52
I think we largely agree, and we think our proposed language is factual in that regard
Julie Bisland
04:05:06
Invite will be sent out shortly
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
04:06:20
@Matthew, you may feel thatit accurately reflects what was done. Others may not. BUt we botrh agree that the concl. section should not be silent.
Brian King (IPC)
04:06:32
That's baloney though
Brian King (IPC)
04:06:44
Our "time constraints" are entirely self-imposed.
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
04:07:10
Could we also have an update on the list of the new timescales
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
04:07:18
@Alan - fair point, and glad we are finding some common ground. Would be helpful to hear what in the proposed language is objectionable.
Margie Milam (BC)
04:07:19
+l Chris LE
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
04:07:21
I am afraid the way we are pushing will lead to no consensus
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
04:07:41
Respectfully, these are artificial deadlines which may be changed.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
04:07:47
By all - thanks
Brian King (IPC)
04:07:52
Disrespectfully, they're baloney :-)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:07:55
Thanks all. Bye.