Logo

051040031: RySG Meetings - Shared screen with speaker view
Sue Schuler (RySG Secretariat)
02:21:48
Welcome to the meeting of the Roles and Responsibilities Discussion Group. Please announce your name before speaking for purposes of the transcript. Please mute your microphone when not speaking to help maintain sound quality. Thanks
Reg Levy - Tucows
02:25:48
but your voice is so mellifluous
Alan Woods
02:25:58
Hahahaha …. Yay! Solved!!……
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:26:32
great word, Reg :)
Beth Bacon (PIR)
02:26:35
hhah
Reg Levy - Tucows
02:27:19
loathe? mellifluous?
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:27:48
mellifluous
Reg Levy - Tucows
02:28:50
ah, it is a good word
Sam Demetriou
02:29:55
They definitely think it does
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:30:36
the RRA "ICANN approved" DPA did not go through pub comment, right?
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:30:48
or did it? been a while, can't recall
Sam Demetriou
02:31:16
Pretty sure it did not, Crystal. I think this one is different bc of its connection with a Policy Recommendation
Donna Austin, Chair
02:31:46
I think the RDAP profile had a public comment period but we 'managed' it so that no changes could be made unless we agreed to it. So we have a precedent for doing it under a different process.
Sam Demetriou
02:31:48
(or they consider it to be different, might be a more accurate way of putting it)
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:32:10
if it's a policy rec, then shouldn't it follow policy development requirements? If it's a straight up contract amendment via addendum, then it should probably go through the amendment processes (sigh)
Ashley Heineman
02:32:31
Doesn't ICANN incorporate different approaches to "public comment" now? IE: just a notice that folks are aware, but comments won't be incorporated. Trying to remember what they did that with recently.
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:34:09
not sure, ashely. my understanding is the official pub comment still requires Staff to summarize comments and incorporate to the extent they feel necessary
Ashley Heineman
02:34:37
There is at least one example where they didn't take comments. killing my brain!!
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:35:55
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-rdap-profile-2018-08-31-en
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:36:18
but even that pub comment said: Next Steps: Following any updates based on input during the public comment period, the gTLD-RDAP Profile will be published and considered for adoption.
Alan Woods
02:36:59
(oof)
Alan Woods
02:37:26
(Re starting with disclosure…..)
Beth Bacon (PIR)
02:37:35
We welcome both
Sam Demetriou
02:39:23
Plus the SSAD will have its own set of rules/terms/whatever, so I agree with Alan’s view. I think this might be a discussion that bubbles up, though, so good to get ourselves aligned to hold that line.
Alan Woods
02:39:46
Yes it’s good keep this in mind definitely.
Matthew Crossman (Amazon)
02:40:01
Agree, I think that is the right way to think about it
Alan Woods
02:40:07
Exactly the SSAD vendors would be a processor for ICANN etc… ugh ….
Reg Levy - Tucows
02:41:48
+1 not calling out titles, that seems to get ICANN’s hackles up
Alan Woods
02:42:40
Making … she’s mean!!
Alan Woods
02:45:19
Go for it
Alan Woods
02:45:24
see..mean!
Reg Levy - Tucows
02:47:18
makes sense, thank you Matt
Reg Levy - Tucows
02:47:53
I like that, thank you
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:50:10
we only have Escrow bc ICANN requires it....
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:50:18
liability should be on them imho
Alan Woods
02:50:19
+1 Crystal
Sam Demetriou
02:52:20
Plus part of the Phase 1 policy is “reasonable disclosure”
Sam Demetriou
02:53:50
I read this chapeau as sort of a roundabout way of indicating ICANN is a controller
Sam Demetriou
02:54:17
Like a big “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN (cough cough, it’s you)"
Beth Bacon (PIR)
02:55:02
Haha
Beth Bacon (PIR)
02:55:11
that was the first draft tbh
Alan Woods
02:56:01
Hahahah lol ….. I was like .. I broke it
Sam Demetriou
02:57:14
It’s also not outside the realm of possibility that a data subject would assume ICANN has a role here
Sam Demetriou
02:57:27
The fact that ICANN runs its own RDDS lookup, for example
Sam Demetriou
02:57:46
So even if they don’t hold data, they need to direct to the proper party
Matthew Crossman (Amazon)
02:57:53
Right, and that is why we have language trying to spell out that they must forward those requests to us
Alan Woods
02:58:27
They will never do so - also never could … sigh
Crystal Ondo - Google
02:58:40
yep appreciate it thx guys
Reg Levy - Tucows
03:00:17
it is acceptable to me and the opposite of a terrible idea
Matthew Crossman (Amazon)
03:01:34
I like that . . . may be less distracting, help us stay focused
Sam Demetriou
03:01:36
TBH I also can’t remember what their comments were on other pieces
Alan Woods
03:02:53
Happy to go with the majority here. I think we will start from a POV that they will likely have not read it ‘substantively’ by Friday - and ask for that background anyway - s I’m 6 of one half dozen of the other.
Alan Woods
03:05:28
I pencil that in daily …..
Crystal Ondo - Google
03:05:38
Yes, Thank you!!!
Alan Woods
03:05:47
Mainly Matt…..! :)
Sam Demetriou
03:06:04
Guys stop being so deferential. You’re all excellent
James Galvin (Afilias)
03:06:05
yes, big thank you!!
James Galvin (Afilias)
03:06:16
group thank you hug!
Donna Austin, Chair
03:06:25
thanks