Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2A Team Call
Terri Agnew
34:13
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en**Members: reminder, when using chat, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
48:08
I strongly support what Steve said.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
49:07
I disagree with what Steve said. Any resulting policy is binding on the CPH, so their positions, statements, and rationales need to be listened to and accommodated. Not simply rejected in favor of goals that are unachievable, questionable, or not possible.
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
51:36
@Mark- not policy, but guidance that should be followed. So still something that CPH issues and concerns need to be acknowledged rather than dismissed as has happened repeatedly in Phase 2a
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
54:26
Staff is squaring the circle every day
Christian Dawson (ISPCP)
54:58
+1 Volker
Mark Svancarek (BC)
55:43
Staff are amazing
Sarah Wyld (Tucows) (RrSG)
55:53
+1 Staff are amazing
Manju Chen (NCSG)
58:57
+1 Staff are awesome
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:00:14
Repeating an earlier post, and many thanks to Terri for the perpetual reminder to include attendees (blush). I may get this figured out before the EPDP ends. I think we should not force staff to work over the holiday weekend, because the report is far from finished despite the Herculean effort….not their fault
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
01:01:20
I believe the intro has been updated
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
01:03:29
If a group hasn't yet spoken on this topic, please get in queue.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:07:06
+1 staff did a difficult and excellent job
Steve DelBianco (BC)
01:11:55
Pushback and rhetoric that we employ doing our calls and debates are appropriate. But when we are publishing a report of outcomes, there is no benefit to trashing each other’s positions.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:12:19
+1 Kieth consensus is possible
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:12:35
Agree with Steve.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:17:28
Friday tomorrow or next week?
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
01:17:36
Friday tomorrow
Jan Janssen (IPC)
01:18:26
Thanks Caitlin. Understood.
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
01:21:42
All, as we consider Agenda #4, please again consider what we need to include in the Initial Report to generate meaningful input from the public comment period.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:22:16
BC supports the SSAC suggestion
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:24:25
So "extensible" means the ability to extend/enlarge the field as needed in future?
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:25:28
Right - if we have some other (future) value that makes sense here, as a “registrant type”, can we do that?
Sarah Wyld (Tucows) (RrSG)
01:25:30
Laureen, I think so? Or, if we look atthe Wikipedia definition of EPP, they call it "flexible". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Provisioning_Protocol
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:26:03
Thanks for that, Sarah - helpful terminology reference.
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:26:09
SSAC agrees strongly the filed is not dispositive with respect to whether the registrant data is to be published nor whether the status should be published. These are three distinct ideas. That said, having a place to record Legal/Natural/Unspecified is appropriate.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:26:10
How hard will it be to figure this out later….add a field when we have more clarity,
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:26:28
Alan and Stephanie are making the same point.
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
01:26:32
acronym soup!
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:26:58
Agree with Marc that providing those three options obscures the complexity of the relevant question (is there PI in this registration)
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:27:13
“Unspecified” is ok with SSAC
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:28:16
+1 to "unspecified." And agree to SSAC's proposal.
Sarah Wyld (Tucows) (RrSG)
01:29:27
+1 to "Unspecified"
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:30:56
Why do we need a question in this regard?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:32:07
legal - natural - unspecified
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:33:38
Personal information present?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:34:16
Agreed Laureen
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:35:52
@Stephanie. I CHANGED that
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:37:33
@Volker at this point the field is referring to the registrant type only
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:37:54
Yes, but why should it do that?
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:38:31
Thanks, all, for helpful feedback on our suggestion.
Berry Cobb
01:38:53
The personal/non-personal distinction only applies/is relevant for registrants who have self-identified as legal persons.
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:39:32
I am dropping for another meeting, handing off to Steve C at this point - thanks, all!
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:40:03
I understand that Berry, yet that information is ultimately more relevant for disclosure decisions
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:40:16
@Volker differentiation would never be possible based only on the registrant type. However, numerous benefits were stated to why this distinction is a necessary first step
Berry Cobb
01:40:50
@Volker - was not a statement, but a copy paste of the footnote text into the chat. I should have prefaced that.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:41:40
Understood, thanks Berry ;-)
Sarah Wyld (Tucows) (RrSG)
01:43:20
No yeah - thanks
Sarah Wyld (Tucows) (RrSG)
01:43:47
I didn't mean i'd heard you saying that, but, I know we all have concerns with providing only partial sections of GDPR or our B&B advice because it is often so interdependent
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:46:02
+1 Sarah
Berry Cobb
01:48:54
Also Rec#12 about Org field, that if RNH agrees to publish.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:55:03
What is the point of differentiating if we do not then use it???
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:55:17
There is always the option of NOT differntiating
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:57:14
So are you saying that in order to follow the guidance - it's ALL the guidance including the MUST or don't follow it at all? That seems odd.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:57:48
@Keith, NO, that is not what I was saying.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:58:37
Are we still debating SHOULD? I can't tell.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:58:58
@Mark yes
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:59:03
What is the benefit of diff. if we do not act on it??
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:59:26
Sorry, I don't speak in legal terms
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
02:00:34
Perhaps we can replace both "must" or "should" with "are expected to"
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:00:35
Aside from whether the word will be MUST or SHOULD, I see no conflict in saying "In order to follow the guidance is that if you do something, you MUST do it as follows - or else you are not actually following the guidance"
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:01:02
[ignore typos, sorry]
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:01:24
that works for me Keith.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:01:27
thank you!
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:01:55
I could live with it
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:02:08
Thank you Jan for pointing out the many conditionals already embedded in this guidance.
Jan Janssen (IPC)
02:02:13
old hand
Marc Anderson (RySG / Verisign)
02:02:16
Just to note "MUST" conflicts with our own advice (see #7):7. Distinguishing between legal and natural person registrants alone may not be351 dispositive of how the information should be treated (made public or masked), as352 the data provided by legal persons may include personal data that is protected353 under data protection law, such as GDPR.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:03:45
MarcA, I don't think so. 346 already includes "legal" AND "no personal data"
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:04:55
Are we making it up as we are going along?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:05:09
We _must_ follow the rules or there will be chaos
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:06:17
@Volker, if the target is not good effective policy, I have no interest in spending my personal time on it.
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
02:07:51
Procedurally, the work of any PDP WG is necessarily limited by its charter and scope.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:10:01
The proposal would e guidance.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:10:05
"be"
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:10:18
Laureen beat me to it
Christian Dawson (ISPCP)
02:14:19
Thank you to all
Berry Cobb
02:14:20
Meetings on 1 June and 3 June. Invites sent out.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:14:25
Bye