Logo

SSAD ODP Community Webinar - Shared screen with speaker view
Yuko Yokoyama
28:36
I can’t enable video...?
Yuko Yokoyama
28:39
Host disabled it?
Jeff Neuman
28:47
Can I ask that the settings be changed to allow everyone to see the Q&A? It states now that only the host and panelists will be able to see all questions.
Herb Waye
29:54
Greetings from the Office of the Ombuds
Diana Middleton
29:56
@Jeff, we are making the Q&A public
Jeff Neuman
30:11
@Diana - thank you.
Andrea Glandon
31:33
Hello, my name is Andrea Glandon and I will be monitoring this chat room. Please note that questions or comments will only be read aloud if submitted in English within the Q&A pod. They will be read aloud at the end of the presentation. Questions and comments placed in chat will be considered as part of the “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone.Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.
Andrea Glandon
32:07
Audio streaming in Zoom will be in English. To listen and speak English during the session, simply join via Zoom.To listen and speak a language other than English, please join via the ICANN Adigo Dial-in Number List (https://www.adigo.com/icann) and enter your language ID:French: 9002Spanish: 9003Chinese: 9004Russian: 9005Arabic: 9006You will also need to join the Zoom session to follow the presentation, see the comments or questions in the chat.
Amr Elsadr
38:30
Apologies…, did Francisco say 16 or 60 different business processes?
Amr Elsadr
38:50
Thanks, Francisco.
Desiree Miloshevic
42:38
@Amr - he said 60
Amr Elsadr
43:06
Thanks, Desiree.
Sarah Wyld
44:06
this makes it seem that ICANN Org will not be auditing or investigating abuse, is that correct?
Sarah Wyld
44:25
employee
Sarah Wyld
44:41
sorry, I can’t copy and paste my question to the Host and Panelists
Sarah Wyld
44:58
“this makes it seem that ICANN Org will not be auditing or investigating abuse, is that correct?” (relating to the previous slide)
Sivasubramanian M
45:08
If ccTLDs Registries are excluded, how would non-govtal natural / legal persons and Governments obtain registration data from ccTLD? Go through the bilteral processes in each and every case? How would the need fo
Eleeza Agopian
45:16
HI Sarah — if you can put your question in the Q&A pod, we’ll be sure to answer there.
Eleeza Agopian
45:29
So that we don’t lose the thread here. :)
Andrea Glandon
45:33
Please note that questions or comments will only be read aloud if submitted in English within the Q&A pod.
Sivasubramanian M
46:30
... How would the needs of Governments / private entries fulfilled by partial (gTLD only) Registration data access? Isn't there a huge gap, from the point of view of the Requestors?
Jan Jansen
47:40
This is going to cause big confusion. Do not use the same terms if they do not match the definition of the EPDP document.
Rubens Kuhl
49:06
Governments already have ties and access to the local ccTLD. Governments asking for disclosure on other countries ccTLDs can amount to spying in some jurisdictions.
Jan Jansen
52:01
This slide oversimplifies things. There will be more then one webservice or API for various parties.
Rubens Kuhl
54:52
ccTLDs have less of everything in relation to abuse, so ccTLDs are the strongest link, not the weak link.
Sivasubramanian M
56:09
@Rubens, hypothetically a malignant actor first causes malice with a .com name, and finds himself at the risk of being unveiled... Are we offering him a way out by leaving him a choice to operate through a ccTLD of another country?
Sivasubramanian M
56:48
perhpas the ccTLD of a country which does not have a working relationship such as an extradition agreement?
Sivasubramanian M
57:14
It would be in the interest of requestors to include ccTLDs in this process.
Rubens Kuhl
57:23
@Siva, you know well that the registrant data in the .com registration is fake data anyways, so the effectiveness of abuse handling won't be different.
Rubens Kuhl
57:56
If MLAT doesn't work, fix MLAT.
Sivasubramanian M
58:01
@Rubens that is a different issue that has a different solution.
Goran Marby
58:48
ICANN does not have a policy mandate over country code operators, they are colleagues in the DNS space. All of them have their own way of setting policies.
Sivasubramanian M
59:39
@Goran, well understood, and agreed to a large extent, this is the present, this is the way it works now, but all this done with the Requestor's needs in mind
Sivasubramanian M
01:00:16
ICANN at least owes it to the Requestors to inform them that "we will offer you gTLD non public data access, but this doesn't solve your problem"
Sivasubramanian M
01:00:32
The concept of a weak link in securiy parlance comes into play
Sivasubramanian M
01:01:27
(another question) what is the rationale for different contracts for accreditation and gateway?
Andrea Glandon
01:02:58
Please note that questions or comments will only be read aloud if submitted in English within the Q&A pod. They will be read aloud at the end of the presentation. Questions and comments placed in chat will be considered as part of the “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone.
Goran Marby
01:03:16
Just a reminder, all processes and processes are a technical implementation of the polices set by the PDP.
Sivasubramanian M
01:03:24
(question on accreditation) How many accrediation authorities in the example country USA? One or 50?
Sivasubramanian M
01:06:35
@Andrea I posted some of the intended questions in chat, then tried to copy and paste it to the Q&A pod, invariably this is what is copied: U8+6XXr!HV
Sivasubramanian M
01:06:58
Tried to copy it on to Q&A and also tried to copy it to a notepad in the computer, same result.
Andrea Glandon
01:09:45
The questions in the chat may get lost in the thread. Please type your questions in the Q&A pod.
Amr Elsadr
01:17:39
The last scenario for automated processing should include some kind of check that the data set deemed to not include any personal information was not updated since the previous disclosure.
Rubens Kuhl
01:18:06
Wouldn't U8+^XXr!HV happen to be one of your passwords that was already in the clipboard ?
Yuko Yokoyama
01:37:04
Here is the link to the Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-phase-2-temp-spec-gtld-registration-data-2-31jul20-en.pdf
Frank Anati
01:37:05
hi everyone Frank Anati from Ghana https://www.linkedin.com/in/frank-anati
Jan Jansen
01:37:29
Question: Why is the ODP team redefining the terms "Accreditation Authorities" and "Central Gateway" as carrefully drafted by the EPDP Team and introduce confusion ? Would a rewording not have been a more obvious and better choice ?
Yuko Yokoyama
01:38:26
Recommendation 9.4 defines the criteria for what requests can be automated.
Andrea Glandon
01:38:48
Hi Jan! Please type your question into the Q&A pod. Thank you!
Yuko Yokoyama
01:38:51
Here is the link to the Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-phase-2-temp-spec-gtld-registration-data-2-31jul20-en.pdf
Jan Jansen
01:39:29
Hi Andrea - I which I could - I am blocked from entering questions.
Jan Jansen
01:40:02
Ah - it seems te have been "deblocked" thank you, I will do so
Andrea Glandon
01:40:15
You’re welcome!
Amr Elsadr
01:46:56
The definitions may not be explicitly changed, but there are changes in roles of the different parties involved with providing SSAD-related services.
Jeff Neuman
01:48:42
Timeline?
Rubens Kuhl
01:50:26
No ambiguity - who pays fines, makes the decision.
Amr Elsadr
01:50:48
@Rubens @Goran: +1
Sarah Wyld
01:50:58
+1 Rubens
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:19
yup
Owen Smigelski
01:51:40
+1 Rubens and Göran. I am not sure what ambiguity Brian is referencing.
Jan Jansen
01:53:00
so if ICANN is willing to pay all fees we have no problem ?
Jan Jansen
01:53:39
fines that is
Jeff Neuman
01:54:39
Great, thanks.
Amr Elsadr
01:55:01
@Jan: Not really up to ICANN, even if it is willing to pay fines due to non-compliance with law.
Yuko Yokoyama
01:55:17
Jeff, here is the link to the presentation that contains timeline: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-ssad-odp-project-update-community-discussion-28oct21-en.pdf
Goran Marby
01:55:35
Jan, now I do not understand the question. Have a look at the Strawberry project. We wanted to make ICANN the legal entity responsible for the balancing test, and that would change the legal status of the contracted party
Jan Jansen
01:55:35
@arm I should have added *deep sarcasm*
Amr Elsadr
01:55:51
@Jan: ;-)
Herb Waye
01:56:04
Have to leave to reboot my computer… take care everyone, stay safe and be kind
Goran Marby
01:56:06
And Jan, the EC decided not to take the question to the Data Protection Board
Jan Jansen
01:56:45
@goran I have seen a lot of "politically" correct answers ... but will the end result of the ODP be something the IRT can use ?
Brian King
01:57:18
@Goran, we appreciate that effort. A centralized model is the only one that will work. CPs consistently demonstrate, with very few exceptions, that they will not voluntarily disclose RDS data.
Goran Marby
01:58:05
Jan, that is probably one of the few times I have been called political correct
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:05
Thanks for today's update session... looking forward to hearing more in Dec and going forward...
Rubens Kuhl
01:58:08
@Brian, are requesters willing to bear fines caused by disclosure decisions ?
Sarah Wyld
01:58:10
Thank you, all!