Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
34:45
Can we talk about autonomous attack drones instead?
Rafik Dammak (GNSO Council Liaison)
34:57
nope
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
35:18
Been watching black mirror again Volker?
Franck Journoud (IPC)
35:42
+1 Volker
Thomas Rickert
35:52
Hi all!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
37:11
greetings all
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
37:29
@Volker: +1 :-)
bburr
37:33
Good morning
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
37:46
Noooooooo
zzzYawri Carr (NCSG- Alternate)
37:48
Hello everyone, I’m Yawri the new alternate, excited for this new phase. Nice to met you all!
zzzYawri Carr (NCSG- Alternate)
37:58
meet*
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
38:20
Welcome, Yawri.
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
39:28
Welcome to the team. Yawri!
Brian King (IPC)
40:00
One suggestion is for the EPDP to go to Cancun anyway
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
40:16
I’m game for that, Brian.
Brian King (IPC)
40:16
Not a formal proposal, just speaking off the cuff as well.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
40:20
I think that's a good suggestion, if they haven't cancelled our flights already
Terri Agnew
40:27
Who has joined from the telephone number ending in 206?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
40:27
Hi Yawri
Brian King (IPC)
40:29
We should consider it
zzzYawri Carr (NCSG- Alternate)
40:34
Thank you so much!!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
41:03
@Brian: How about we make history, and come up with a joint NCSG/IPC proposal to head out to Cancun? ;-)
Berry Cobb
41:16
Note, a F2F in May will require approval from the PCST. There are thin funds available, but there's also the time rule of 4 months for which we will need approvals to bypass.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
41:25
The May meeting looks like a good option in addition to some extra meetings during the Cancun time
Brian King (IPC)
41:46
@Amr, deal!
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
41:57
Hadia +1
James Bladel (RrSG)
41:59
Agree with Marc. The impact to the EPDP delivery calendar is one of the consequences of this last minute change. We just need to accept that.
Berry Cobb
42:04
Note, Cancun was intended to focus on Priority 2 items as we are still in the public comment period.
Berry Cobb
42:25
Priority 2 items are not consider a part of the critical path to delivery a final report.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
42:49
Is audio breaking up for everyone, or just me?
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
42:53
Fine for me
Berry Cobb
42:57
So in effect, we are not losing time by not being in Cancun.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
43:04
Thanks, Julf.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
43:05
Berry +1
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
43:19
10 hour calls are one thing. Doing them from different time zones makes it unworkable imho.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
43:29
@Thomas: +1
Berry Cobb
43:33
Deadline for Priority 2 items is 24 March for any chance of inclusion into the final report.
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
43:47
+1 Thomas
James Bladel (RrSG)
43:55
Here’s the problem tho - it wasn’t the location, it was the gathering of people from around the world. That issue follows us wherever we go.
Brian King (IPC)
44:01
Might I suggest we look at the timeline review for priority 2 items to help inform what our meetings requirements are. IPC noted yesterday that some of the Priority 2 items might be less of a "priority" now.
James Bladel (RrSG)
44:08
There are more COVID19 cases in Illinois than in Mexico.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
44:24
Why May?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
45:18
Because it is the month before June
Brian King (IPC)
45:46
DC is an option worth exploring. Many of us are local anyway, and ICANN has an office.
Berry Cobb
46:02
DC cannot fit the size of our group.
Berry Cobb
46:26
If the PCST does approve an additional F2F, the Meeting team will provide options. The location is mostly out of our hands.
Alan Woods (Donuts Inc. / RYSG)
46:32
May is going to be pretty full anyway with GDD and we again have all day jobs too. it's kinda crazy. we are volunteers at the end of the day and expectations must be balanced (akin to art 6(1)f)
Berry Cobb
46:36
going to Cancun is not an option.
Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Liaison)
46:48
Alan is correct that that would not be viable
Berry Cobb
47:22
The group can consider of devoting 10 hours on P2 items over the course of the week.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
47:30
I think we need the meetings in March, not May
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
47:34
Correct, James
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
47:49
April then?
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
47:55
Preferred option: LA f2f, second best option: more 2 h calls to get the job done
Alan Woods (Donuts Inc. / RYSG)
48:02
on top of "remote participation" and time differences. Blandly no to that … sorry.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
48:24
I agree with Milton, but kniung ICANN's processes, I can't see how we could pull it off.
James Bladel (RrSG)
48:26
Saturday could be 2 or 3 meetings with an extended break in between. Then the various SGs and Cs could work in shifts
Brian King (IPC)
48:27
Just a note that INTA is rescheduling its Annual Meeting for a TBD date in April or May
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
48:37
Why not March, we have already cleared that time from our schedules. That said, early April is possible
Brian King (IPC)
49:32
Dan is here from Org
Brian King (IPC)
49:38
Not to put him on the spot :-)
Berry Cobb
49:49
@Milton - March is devoted to P2 items as we are in public comment for most of it. Then we review comments in April. May is the best timeframe for trying to deliver a final report by 11 June.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
49:54
Problem with May is that its too last-minute.
Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Liaison)
50:11
It would be helpful if the EPDP could ‘decide’ over the next week or so whether it would like to ask for a f2f and if so the sort of time that would be appropriate. If indeed it is possible, it still takes a bit of time to organise logistically even were it to be in LA in office.
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
50:24
Was just going to ask if this is also put on the agenda for next week as we don't have Janis and ICANN attendees
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
50:51
Berry, the idea of putting off critical work until two weeks before the deadline is something that has been proven NOT to work, time and again
Rafik Dammak (GNSO Council Liaison)
51:01
@chris yes
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
51:17
It forces us into sloppy work and badly thoughtou tor topdown compromises.
James Bladel (RrSG)
54:32
Yep, that aligns with what we’ve been saying: They can’t grade our homework for us.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
54:40
thanks for the summary, Georgios.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
55:03
Thanks Georgios
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
57:08
+1 Amr. It all depends on the specifics
Alan Woods (Donuts Inc. / RYSG)
57:16
But did they not also say that they are not actually advisors …
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
57:54
They did. So the idea that they can bless something -especially something based on summary presentations - and we are home free, has always been unrealistic
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
57:58
sorry!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
58:14
Mark, Marc, what's the diff? ;-)
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
59:00
We need to properly write things up.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
59:08
Why is ICANN still presenting this as a UAM instead of a SSAD?
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
59:39
Do we need that as a tattoo our our foreheads?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
59:49
@Marc: +1. This is why feedback on summaries/presentations are not terribly helpful. Raise more questions rather than provide answers.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:00:02
Thanks for this Marc, agree with your points here
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:00:24
If we gave the DPA a proposal including responsibilities and a proper DPIA, he could opine on what we are planning to do.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:00:27
"common sense" is certainly not common
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:01:02
same ambiguity concerns the discussion of "automation." We have all agreed to automated requests, but not disclosure
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:01:17
but the blog post does not distinguish between the two
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:02:07
What I took from the automation para (to Milton's point) is the same thing we've said in previous meetings -- some aspects can be automated, but the disclosure decision has to be made properly regardless of how it's made
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:02:27
@MarkSV: Exactly right!! +1
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:02:46
@MarkSV - given the little detail no yelling is success
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:02:59
@MarkSV: +1 again.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:03:03
I think we all could use a good yelling
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:03:13
Thomas: funny and true
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:03:22
(human review is not always the 61f balancing test)
Brian King (IPC)
01:03:37
It would be great if Georgios and others in attendance could respond since the question tally is really adding up
Alan Woods (Donuts Inc. / RYSG)
01:03:41
well the DPIA is actually the legal means to ask the EDPB to actually express a formal opinion -
Brian King (IPC)
01:03:41
Thanks
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:03:54
Rafik: declare full consensus: blog post unhelpful!
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:04:14
@Alan, then a simple DPIA would have been a good prep for the meeting
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:04:47
Liability is not all that matters
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:04:56
@Georgios: Thanks. That makes sense, and interesting to learn that the DPA is open to answering specific questions.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:04:58
Not violating the rights of registrants matters more to me
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:05:11
No, but until we understand liability we'll never agree on cntrollership IMO
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:05:24
+1 Mark SV
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:05:36
If liability is the elephant in the room, it appears that there also is a Brontosausrus in the room as well called privacy rights
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:06:52
@Volker: +1.
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:07:27
It is a false choice to say that we can't resolve liability issues without considering data subject rights
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:08:08
there is always concern that everyone will "do everything right based on our best understanding" and still get in trouble
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:08:14
Although seeing that there is not a single living brontosaurus (afaik), hopefully, privacy rights are not dead, or just displayed in some museum. ;-)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:09:33
Hadia, as noted, it is completely unclear what "centralized" means in this context. Nor is it clear what "automation" means
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:10:48
We already knew that, though
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:10:56
@Hadia: How is any of that helpful, when the DPA clearly stated that more information is required for them to provide meaningful input?! You can’t just pass off items in the blog as “the DPA said it’s ok”!!
Alan Woods (Donuts Inc. / RYSG)
01:11:07
as a reminder - this is a report of what was said - not what was said.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:13:25
A good point, Alan W
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:14:38
@Amr the problem is that we are trying to make the DPAs come up with a solution for us or figure out the perfect model that would fit us. This will not happen. We should take the main principles and build our model in our way. We continue thinking about the liability where what actually matters is compliance and getting the job done
Alan Woods (Donuts Inc. / RYSG)
01:16:19
to be clear I'm not saying the blog is inaccurate - but I found Georgios' description to be far more helpful.
Brian King (IPC)
01:16:19
one possible way to get "more structured" is to turn the current very high level vague section on Authorization (rec 6 and 7) into something more specific - a flow chart based on legal basis/use cases/etc.
Caitlin Tubergen
01:16:58
@Hadia - is that a new hand? If not, please lower your hand.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:17:13
@Hadia: I don’t see that as the problem, Hadia. Your comment in the chat about what we should do makes a lot of sense to me. The problem I have with what you said earlier is that you suggested that the statements in the blog are somehow useful to us, with the knowledge that the Belgian DPA didn’t have the details needed to offer meaningful advice of any kind.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:17:37
Brian's point is interesting, but I"m not sure it's feasible? We already have a list of what the Contracted Party should consider as part of making the disclosure decision, I don't know that we can get any more prescriptive
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:17:41
@Mark I agree what matters is how and if the algorithm considers a criteria that is GDPR compliant
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:21:16
Yes, we understand that and that is included in the question.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:21:52
I never really considered the Legal vs. Natural to be a legal problem. It was always an implementation paradox.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:22:03
Would be interesting to see if B&B will reach the same conclusions RIPE-NCC have reached on legal vs natural, or not.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:25:30
James +1
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:26:15
James +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:27:10
@James: Good point. I suppose the feasibility study might be more relevant than legal advice.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:29:26
James, I was filling in for Tatiana on the legal call and found that about 75% of the proposed legal questions are not actually legal questions but proxy battles for policy or implementation
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:29:57
PS : Happy to be on the small group for 'automation' proposals
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:30:22
To no one's surprise, I also volunteer to be on the automation team
Ben Butler (SSAC)
01:30:36
If I recall, one aspect we could benefit from legal advice on was if the legal person represents to the Rr that they have obtained informed consent to have a natural person’s data published… Can the Rr rely on that representation?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:30:54
yes, Ben, that was one legi question
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:30:59
Ben, you are correct.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:30:59
legit
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:31:31
I assumed the answer was “no, you’re still on the hook."
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:31:35
Sign me up for AUTOMATION small group. Make me an automaton
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:31:56
@James I think it's more complicated than that
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:31:57
@Ben: Having an answer to that question will be informative, but hardly determinative of wether we should recommend differentiation. Just sayin’. ;-)
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:33:25
I'd like to be on the automation small group please.
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:33:28
[INSERT KILLER DRONE JOKE]
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:35:59
Thank you Berry. I felt that was clear, and indeed explained in LA very well.
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:36:58
I still say that "we ran out of money" is a terrible justification
Berry Cobb
01:37:11
Link to all the project package documents: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105388008
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:37:28
I see OCTO purpose at the top right on screen now
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:37:31
so it's scheduled?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:37:54
(and as Volker says, I thought they said they do not need data)
Brian King (IPC)
01:38:04
OCTO purpose is different from "purpose 2" replacement
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:38:19
+1 Volcker, let's delete the OCTO purpose
Brian King (IPC)
01:38:29
We still need a "purpose 2" replacement
Berry Cobb
01:38:42
@Marksv - as noted, this project is being funded by Org contingency budget. Those remaining funds are returned to close out the fiscal year. Should the EPDP provide rationale to ask for more after 30 June, then the Council will have to request new additional funds.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:38:56
Oh, the other ICANN purpose
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:39:08
oh, the issue we could not agree on
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:39:18
That still requires ICANN to fess up to being a controller and so far… You heard Dan in LA
Berry Cobb
01:39:22
To that point, I think the rationale will have to be extensive. The Board made very clear about funds provided when they were approved back in August.
Berry Cobb
01:40:08
We can still devote 10 hours of remote participation over the week to discuss Priority 2 items.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:40:47
BTW, I think OCTO is an apt name for a data kraken
Berry Cobb
01:41:45
Also note, PDP3.0 produced a whole new way for the Council to manage resources. As noted, unless there is clear rationale and signs of getting to agreement on items, the Council will have to make a decision on what other work should continue or not.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:42:36
@Milton: +1
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:42:56
@Berry we could sure devote some time for priority 2 issues
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:43:10
@Milto +1 we all need to compromise
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:43:36
@Milton +2
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:43:54
*@Milton
Brian King (IPC)
01:44:03
Let's just get this done on time
Brian King (IPC)
01:44:14
We need to work together, quickly.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:45:47
Kumba-yah!
Brian King (IPC)
01:46:59
I toggled my hand in order to after Marc. I note the RySG has comments here that may be helpful.
Berry Cobb
01:48:13
Link to worksheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1izpX2C-RrfAdRgRDwBO9tQuJIBA9Xt38p1MTJgQNDGI/edit
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:48:38
I am logging of Skype and dialing in.
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:51:33
My recollection is the same as MarcA and Brian. Putting my hand down
Mark Svancarek (BC) (marksv)
01:52:14
Hand back up
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:52:52
@Brian: I wouldn’t count on the scenario you describe. Some service providers act as de-facto p/p providers without even intending to do so. I know of many local examples of web developers who act as p/p providers. Doubt anything ICANN can do about it.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:53:05
@Volker I think that registrants who use this service will continue to do so
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:53:07
Kind of OT, but since you brought it up. :)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:53:14
+1 Volcker. Privacy Proxy services were simply reactions to open Whois. No need for them any more
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
01:53:30
+1 Volker
Brian King (IPC)
01:54:19
@Amr agreed, and I don't think there's anything we'd want to do about it, at least not here/now.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:54:20
If this EPDP Team recommends differentiating between registrants and CPs based on geo location, there may still be a need for p/p services.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:54:25
Many of their functions & values are made obsolete by SSAD.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:54:31
@Brian: Agree.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:54:58
I should modify my "no need for them" statement: if certain people succeed in making legal person registrations open then you will get privacy proxy services again
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:54:58
+1 Mark I don't think privacy/proxy will go away
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:55:25
The cost model of the accreditation service by
Brian King (IPC)
01:55:51
Our job here is merely to confirm how P/P registrations will be treated in the public RDDS
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:56:23
Also, since a P/P service is likely a non-natural person, it could be swept up under how we address that topic as well.
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:56:31
Surely Brian that is the job of the P&P pdpd… not us …
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:56:36
*pdp
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:56:40
too many P's
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:57:23
Maybe they will stay, but greatly diminished. It is worth reviewing a year or so after SSAD is in place.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:57:34
Until then, the IRT should stay paused.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:58:36
I do think the PPSAI team should review now that the RDDS landscape has changed
Brian King (IPC)
01:59:20
@Alan W and @Sarah, I think I agree. That's good work for them to do (not us) :-)
Brian King (IPC)
01:59:36
Also, the policy development there is technically done, it just needs to be implemented.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:59:43
yes, we have enough to do
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:59:51
Agreed
Alan Woods (RYSG)
02:00:01
Agreed indeed
Brian King (IPC)
02:00:27
Let's not make our lives harder than they need to be.
Brian King (IPC)
02:00:29
Thanks
Brian King (IPC)
02:00:47
thank you to staff
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:03:07
Could I be added please to the autmates
Alan Woods (RYSG)
02:03:12
volunteered already - but I re-volunteer as tribute
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:03:24
I could be on the automation team as well
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:04:03
Are there prep materials for the automation call?
Berry Cobb
02:05:36
draft of automation use case: https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/Working+Draft+Use+Case+Candidates+for+Possible+Automation
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:05:53
Chris Lewis Evans. An algorithm has automatically rejected your application to be on the small team
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:06:03
No one knows why...
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:06:19
Thanks Berry
Alan Woods (RYSG)
02:06:43
just to be clear - can we stop calling them "use cases" they are proposals - with potential use cases - Yes pedantic - but also let's not start with preconceived notion.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:07:41
thank you Alan
Margie Milam (BC)
02:07:50
I volunteer for the small team
Brian King (IPC)
02:07:56
Thanks, Caitlin!
Brian King (IPC)
02:08:06
I'll join the small team then too
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:08:06
The "small" team is getting big
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:08:35
Thanks, all
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:08:37
Thanks all. Bye.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:08:39
Thanks all