Logo

EPDP-Phase 2 team call
Volker Greimann
27:46
is there no sound?
Alan Woods (RySG)
28:17
There is Volker … mayhems not for you
Alan Woods (RySG)
28:23
*mayhaps
Volker Greimann
28:27
I hear nothing :-(
Milton Mueller
28:55
thanks for upgrading me to panelist
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
29:01
@Terri: Your audio is breaking up a little.
Andrea Glandon
29:12
You’re welcome, Milton
Terri Agnew
30:08
@Marc, we will check into your link issue.
Matt Serlin
30:31
Same issue for me too…thanks Terri!
Terri Agnew
31:43
As a reminder, March webinar links are different than April webinar links. Make sure you are using your panelist join information for March.
Terri Agnew
32:49
please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
32:49
good question, Janis
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
32:57
@Janis: No temp spec expiration deadline.
Alan Woods (RySG)
34:44
Ok I lost all that - was it just me? Seems Zoom is a teensy teensy best buggy / over burdened today
Terri Agnew
36:27
@Alan, would a dial out on the telephone help?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
37:40
These are all ICANN org purposes or functions, Becky. Not third parties. Does ICANN even need a SSAD to get this data?
Alan Woods (RySG)
38:05
Thanks Terri… it seems to have resolved thank you!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
41:00
apologies for being late
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
41:46
@Amr When you say they are covered you mean those are pusporses covered in Phase one by whom?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
42:18
@Georgios: by the EPDP phase 1 recommendations, which have already been adopted by the ICANN Board.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
42:43
There are specific purposes in phase 1 that cover the supermajority of items listed here, no?
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
43:06
I am not sure why I am asking this question, but if ICANN Org wants that language to be included, is ICANN Org willing to confirm that it can be helf fullly accountable for any issues that might arise with it? #devilsadvocate
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
44:08
@Becky: I didn’t thank you for providing this email. Yikes!! Thanks. :-)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
44:23
ICANN will need it, yes. Third parties?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
44:48
the mission does not identify tasks, therefore the data elements cannot be identified from the mission. However, processing of the data to fulfil the purpose of SSR according to the mission is essential
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
45:17
You’re not answering my question about third parties Becky
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
45:28
+1 Becky
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
45:33
Are we talking ICANN access or third party access?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
46:38
thanks
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
46:55
the mission does not identify tasks, therefore the data elements cannot be identified from the mission. However, processing of the data to fulfil the purpose of SSR according to the mission is essential
Mark Svancarek (BC)
47:01
FWIW ICANN would not necessarily be using 6(1)f
Terri Agnew
47:21
Reminder, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
47:22
FWIW ICANN would not necessarily be using 6(1)f
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
47:23
Milton, this is clearly about ICANN access, otherwise we would be back in the quandary of conflation identified by the Commission
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
47:36
OK, thanks for finally answering that
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
48:02
The paper itself specifically speaks to ICANN’s processing.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
48:10
SO IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT PURPOSE TWO IS EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT DISCLOSURE TO ICANN NOT THIRD PARTIES
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
48:42
It is about ICANN’s processing of personal information Milton
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
48:57
What you need to be sure of is that ICANN cannot process the data out of its mission and also the proportionality element has to be respected. So there is no reason no oppose this purpose, what are we afraid of?
James Bladel (RrSG)
49:14
As long as ICANN acknowledges its role and responsibilities under Purpose 2.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
49:31
+1 to James -- this is a reasonable resolution of Purpose 2 and based upon the Bylaws.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
50:18
I am still having a great deal of difficulty with this.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
51:07
ICANN does not control all this data. Does this explanation make it some kind of deus ex machina which can reach in at any time and control the data?
Margie Milam (BC)
51:12
Didn't we agree that the terms of the privacy policy was not something we were planning to make recommendations on?
Chris Disspain (ICANN Org Board Liasion)
51:25
I believe we did Margie
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
51:28
I think the clarification that this is for ICANN‘s use is very helpful.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
51:40
Amr is correct, we would need to provide a disclosure to registrants, that is not a problem - and it will be on ICANN as a controller to do so
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
52:01
Can we get NCSG over the line if we include that as mentioned in caps by Milton in this chat?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
52:32
can you repeat it, Janis
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
52:54
Thomas: speaking only for me, answer to your question is yes
Margie Milam (BC)
52:59
+1 to adding the statement to the report
Brian King (IPC)
53:18
I was hoping we would add it to the report
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
55:24
I would need an extensive clarification about ICANN’s role and accountability to get this “over the line”
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
55:51
@Janis: Right. Thanks.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
56:13
From Me to All panelists: (10:29 AM)
I would need an extensive clarification about ICANN’s role and accountability to get this “over the line”
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
57:06
From Me to All panelists: (10:25 AM)
ICANN does not control all this data. Does this explanation make it some kind of deus ex machina which can reach in at any time and control the data?
Berry Cobb
57:54
Link to Can't Live with items: https://docs.google.com/document/d/186a4k-ls0cjbhvWQi_HfryDN1PVjfaSKvWMDKLcVQYM/edit#
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
58:08
@ Janis Can you remind us please whether intermediate results are expected from the study and if yes by when?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
58:47
It is one thing for this group not to dictate to ICANN the terms of its privacy policy. I have had pretty good attendance and participation on this group, and I am still remarkably unclear as to what ICANN has stated as its precise role as a controller, co-controller, or processor, and this is as I have repeated forever, a very critical issue.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
59:27
Whatever that role is, it is not a carte blanche access to RNH data for vague universal purposes.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:08:47
So what Alan G is saying is the ePDP will carry on for years based on that…
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:09:00
Doesn’t look like we’re going to reach any consensus on this.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:09:20
@James: +1. We need to recognize where we’re unlikely to reach consensus on.
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:09:26
I think it boils down to the question whether we are willing to accept fragmentation of treatment of registration data at the global level based on these criteria. The real question is, will further work change the consensus level (or the absence thereof) in this group. If not, we should not go into overtime for that.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:10:23
Have we not had this discussion both in Phase 1 and in Phase 2…agreed that consensus on this issue is very unlikely even with additional time
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:10:35
@Matt: =1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:10:38
+1
Brian King (IPC)
01:10:57
This is not jurisdictional
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:11:32
This is not the geo-distinction issue.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:12:08
Why are we talking about jurisdiction?
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:12:23
@Janis: could you ask participants not to characterize the positions, let alone motives, of other EPDP members?
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:12:33
Separating “classes” of registrant based upon the type of entity or geographic location would appear to conflict with Becky’s SSR memo
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:14:24
Not jurisdictional? LOL LOL LOL
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:15:32
for the sake of legal universality differentiation between legal and natural persons is required.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:16:44
we should end this and if the 'GNSO wants more, let it scope another pdp
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:16:46
No one is talking now about geographic distinction
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:16:56
the "e" of epdp is enough of a joke already!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:17:30
We’ve already exhaustively discussed legal vs natural in phase 1 (pending the survey right now), and we’re unlikely to reach consensus on it from a policy perspective, not a legal one. Do we need to list all our reasoning again? We can, if necessary.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:18:03
+1 james
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:19:16
I think it’s clear that privacy law -allows- us to make this distinction, but we have numerous reasons why -requiring- it is unacceptable. Thx.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:19:23
I told you at the start you would be wasting your money
Brian King (IPC)
01:19:24
+1 Margie. The Bird & Bird memo provides helpful guidance on this.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:20:25
+1 on moving forward via a small group and I volunteer to participate. We may yet be able to identify where we have consensus on a few key issues.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:20:55
sorry, need 5 minutes
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:20:57
On th point of timing …. Can we also point out that the recommendation regarding the study in phase I does not state that th
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:21:03
..at we have to wait for the study
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:21:17
Only hat depending on the timing of the research, to use it if available.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:21:25
one minute
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:21:30
.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:21:57
ready now
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:22:01
There is no reason to delay issuing the addendum *IF* it allows us to continue talking about the issue after issuance.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:22:09
Recommendation 17 - 3 - The EPDP Team will discuss the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2. Depending onthe timing of the research, its discussions may inform the scope of research and/oruse its findings
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:22:26
All I’m getting today is that we must -
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:22:42
@AlanW: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:23:20
I clearly agree with Volker on this.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:23:42
+1 Volker and Alan W
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:23:49
Ä‘
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:24:09
@Volker: +1000
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:24:30
pls ignore the last message from me. Sent by accident.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:24:30
Im dropping off and Steve is on in my place
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:24:38
GAC also supports work on legal /natural.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:24:56
I see no reason to delay the addendum for the issue of natural vs legal. It won’t change anything.
Chris Disspain (ICANN Org Board Liasion)
01:25:08
Thanks Thomas…I was just trying to figure out what you were getting at ;-)
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:25:12
let's achieve closure
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:25:16
To be clear, we must publish today. Just say that we have not reach closure on how to address L/N.
Brian King (IPC)
01:25:20
I need to drop at the top of the hour. Thanks, all.
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (Microsoft/BC)
01:25:50
There are more comments in the input form than N/L - can we discuss those today?
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:26:43
Folks - I need to drop. Sarah Wyld will take my place on RrSG. Thanks!
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:26:58
an addendum to the addendum?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:27:35
@MarkSV: +1
Berry Cobb
01:27:45
As I noted, running this small group in parallel risks affecting reviewing the comments on the Initial Report, which is part of critical path.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:29:18
+1 Laureen to form a small group
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:29:19
No small group.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:29:29
No small group.
Berry Cobb
01:29:35
Even if this group runs in parallel, it wont be a part of the addendum report, thus any possible outcome from the small team if it were to be included in the Final report, then it will delay it.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:29:50
exactly, Berry
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:30:39
At huge risk ......
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:30:54
Did I read a different legal opinion?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:30:54
No small group, This is an utterly intractable issue.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:31:09
@ Berry, Janis is suggesting that we treat small group work as a comment that we consider in finalizing report. I don't think that would jeopardize critical path/deadline for final report.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:32:56
I have been proposing from the get go that organizations that wish to self identify as corporations can self identify and propose a certification/accreditation method. Crooks are unlikely to sign up, but hey when did that ever stop this group from considering crazy ideas. However, this proposal has been studiously ignored.
Berry Cobb
01:33:03
@Laureen but it does divert already stretched resources on a timeline with zero slack where the focus of resource should be on reviewing public comments. Which btw, not all groups have submitted by yesterday's deadline.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:33:18
no we may not
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:33:25
I don't think we all agree with that interpretation of the legal advice
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:33:52
I disagree with Steve
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:34:54
Based on this entire conversation, it seems the only way forward is to indicate we did not address the issue and reach consensus and get this back to the GNSO for their action
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:35:07
+1 Matt.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:35:11
basically what Marc is saying :)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:35:19
+1 Matt
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:35:36
Janis+1 lets move on
Steve DelBianco (BC)
01:37:02
The addendum says “the EPDP Team will269 not be able to consider the findings within the timeframe that has been established for270 the delivery of the Final Report.” That is not accurate. Majority of this EPDP understands we MAY publish legal person data, but prefers that we do not. Let’s say so.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:37:44
yes
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:38:50
The NCSG previously said that we should not go ahead with the Bird & Bird questions because it is not a legal matter but a policy matter. so from a legal point of view we do agree that it may be possible however the parties objecting to this are looking at it from a policy point of view and not a legal point of view, this is what our discussions lead to and suggest
Berry Cobb
01:39:29
I don't think this parallel option considers how much work we have ahead for the group to review comments.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:39:41
+1 Berry
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:39:57
+1000 Berry
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:40:47
We have fundamental disagreements as to how helpful that advice is
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:41:29
can we circle round this for now and come back to this at the end of our call?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:41:33
if reviewing legal reports will not change anything, why do we even have a budget for legal adivce?
Steve DelBianco (BC)
01:41:35
The BC comment did not suggest a small team. We want the EPDP to state its conclusion, even if not by consensus
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:41:48
there is no conclusion
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:41:52
But the point is that this is not an issue of lack of time, it's an issue of lack of interest on the part of some members of epdp.
Steve DelBianco (BC)
01:42:26
@Volker — we suggest the conclusion is that data for Legal Persons MAY be published but that EPDP majority do not want to publish.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:42:29
we never reached a formal conclusion on this, so anything more would be a lie to serve an agenda
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:43:11
and personally, I think MAY is fine
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:43:21
I don’t believe it to be a lack of interest rather the resistance to continue to discuss issues that we have already spent countless hours on without reaching consensus
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:43:28
The decision not to publish for legal persons is a policy decision that some in this epdp make, not a legal question whose answer we don't know
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:43:41
as I said again and again, I like options on disclosure and publication
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:44:03
there should not be a position that it MAY NOT be published
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:46:15
it is entirely one-sided.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:46:37
I disagree with that characterization of the EC input
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:46:43
Just out of curiosity, what happens to the model if lazy registrars who are not represented in this group just publish data based on poor (or non-existing) legal analysis, and there are complaints and court cases.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:46:49
I disagree with everything but the first sentence
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:47:30
@Milton: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:48:25
Taking my hand down. Milton said what I wanted to. The text may be accurate, but not complete. The narrative is applicable to all parties. What the BC is asking is for a narrative tilted in its favor.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:48:28
Furthermore, statements about EC reps should always indicate which area in the commission they represent.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:48:47
(Not that I am endorsing the inclusion of that language)
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:48:50
I would like to go on the record that after consultation of the ISPCP, that the ISPCP does not wish that the accuracy discussion shall further burden the EPDP work, but that it is an important topic to be addressed and further worked on in other policy work.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:48:51
Also, I would point out that there is no information "contained in the SSAD"
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:49:08
the SSAD does not hold data, it is an avenue to request disclosure
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:49:29
+ all the numbers Sarah
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:49:47
The B&B legal memo on Accuracy says that the existing structures are sufficient, so I don't think we need to discuss it further here
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:50:51
Again +1 Sarah. B&B were very clear.
Berry Cobb
01:51:03
@Ben, can we address the "?" in the comment. Does SSAC support that statement as is?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:51:14
@Sarah: +1
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:51:16
Berry, the sentence before should be removed as well.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:51:21
All after "treated"
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:51:29
thanks
Berry Cobb
01:51:38
retracted. thx
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:53:02
they just want to remove the more specific reference to 6 1 f.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:54:07
I am ok with the deletion
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:54:48
I like that Recommendation: Do nothing
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:54:59
Do No Harm!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:57:19
@Steve: Sigh…, it’s like I said nothing. :-(
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:57:26
Agree with Steve here. Disclosure is the wrong word here
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:57:48
we all agree with the deletion as far as i can tell
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:57:58
+2 Steve B.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:59:36
=1 Volcker
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:59:42
+1
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:00:13
so it'd be "therefore, publication of uniform masked email addresses is not currently feasible under the GDPR"
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (Microsoft/BC)
02:00:26
+1 Volker - add "uniform"
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:00:40
Preliminary Conclusion?
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (Microsoft/BC)
02:00:41
+1 Sarah
Steve DelBianco (BC)
02:01:06
Agreed, Janis
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (Microsoft/BC)
02:01:18
hooray
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (Microsoft/BC)
02:01:27
sorry
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:02:10
It allows publication of masking emails, the issue is *uniform* masked emails
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:06:44
+1 Steve
Steve DelBianco (BC)
02:07:51
For the part of BC and IPC, our rationale for disagreement on Legal Person and Accuracy were already provided.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
02:09:28
I said that it is about ICANN’s processing of personal data about registrants. I cannot rule out the possibility that there will never be an instance in which ICANN, as a controller, shares information with a third party as part of that processing.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:10:04
Thanks for that clarification Becky.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:10:29
@Becky: Yes…, that’s our concern.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:10:59
Disclosure is a form of processing, so vague language does not exclude it.
Berry Cobb
02:11:02
We're venturing into minority statements. Can all these be removed and disagreements be posted in the public comment?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:11:29
@Berry: Aren’t minority statements normally included in reports?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:11:39
Milton is right here
Berry Cobb
02:11:41
Final Reports after Consensus calls.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:12:34
OK to delete it;
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:13:23
sorry :-)
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:13:35
Milton is making an important distinction.
Steve DelBianco (BC)
02:13:39
But Milton, we agree with Becky that the purpose does NOT foreclose 3rd party disclosure as part of ICANN processing
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
02:14:10
@amr, I don’t think that distinguishes ICANN’s purpose from any other purpose. From time to time a controller may disclose information to a third party consistent with the requirements of GDPR.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:14:17
@Milton it is an ICANN purpose however, ICANN may share the data with third parties
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:14:25
No, Hadia
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
02:14:31
But the purpose is not to disclose
Chris Disspain (ICANN Org Board Liasion)
02:14:43
exactly -
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:14:50
Don’t agree with Hadia
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:15:08
Becky: then that needs to be stated explicitly
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:15:08
Indeed, as Becky has stated, there may be exceptional circumstances where ICANN feels it has the authority to disclose to third parties. However, that is not the same as third parties’ purposes finding a home in ICANN’s purposes. Obviously, all stakeholders have an interest in maintaining SSR.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:16:09
so given the EU advice about not conflating icann purposes with third parties, we need to add some wording to Rec 23 to say what Becky said - that the purpose is not to disclose to third parties
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:16:25
@Milton how can ICANN guarantee that there won't be some circumstances that would require the sharing of the data
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:17:04
Hadia, they don’t have to
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:17:09
there may be - but that is only as required for icann’s limited mission. we just need to make it clear that this is not a “we collect data with purpose to disclose
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
02:17:13
+1 Stephanie You express exactly what I wanted to say
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:17:18
Dropping comment is ok, but rewording Rec is not.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:17:52
it does!
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
02:18:08
Milton, I’ve said repeatedly that Purpose 2 as supported by the Board articulates a purpose for ICANN’s processing of personal data about registrants. The basis of the purpose is to eliminate the conflation problem identified by the Commission.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:18:24
@Becky: Understood, and not disagreeing. Just trying to explain why not being specific on this is problematic from an NCSG (registrant) perspective. I’m not even sure having a vague purpose on SSR grants the legal certainty ICANN org should be seeking.
Berry Cobb
02:18:32
We can add a foot note pointing back to Phase 1 report, Rec #1
Berry Cobb
02:18:49
Thank you for pointing that out Marc.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:18:58
The way this is going, we will not be able to publish this today :-(
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:20:11
no one has proposed that Becky (prohibited)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:20:23
just want to make it clear it’s an ICANN purpose, as Marc proposed
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:21:40
It still requires clarification in my view, mostly because only a few understand what it really means. Specificity as to examples, underlying reasons, likely frequency etc ought to be provided to ensure it is not abused
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:23:15
Sorry all … I must drop!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:23:16
Thank you Becky this is clear
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:23:52
@Amr yes you an Becky are saying the same thing
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:24:00
and
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:24:19
+ 1 Berry
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
02:24:25
Apologies, must now move to another call
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:24:32
Same.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:24:53
I need to drop as well
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:24:55
Thanks all
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:25:42
thanks, all
Steve DelBianco (BC)
02:26:34
Janis — are we saying that no “minority statements” will be in this Addendum,?
Berry Cobb
02:26:53
no. Disagreeements to be posted in public comment.
Rafik Dammak (GNSO Council Liaison)
02:26:58
Thanks all
Berry Cobb
02:27:01
minority statements are for final report.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:27:03
Thank you all bye for now