Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2A Team Call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
26:19
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 everyone or all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
31:49
Thank you Melissa, I look forward to joining the discussions next week
Berry Cobb
31:57
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17LQV0ELcmzgvUyUSxLcekNf32V_pa2Hi/edit
Terri Agnew
33:09
Reminder, when using chat, please select everyone or all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Brian King (IPC)
36:40
To be clear, there will clearly not be consensus that no changes are needed.
Brian King (IPC)
37:01
I think I'm agreeing with Alan W.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
37:34
Agree with Alan that we need to be careful with double negatives;-)
Alan Woods (RySG)
38:18
ha afraid you are not Brian. The question asked was - is there consensus that changes are needed to 17 - therefore there is no consensus.
Margie Milam (BC)
38:30
+1 Chris
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
38:33
Well put Brian. Agree with Alan and Sarah as well.
Alan Woods (RySG)
38:48
not that there is no consensus that changes are not needed! (all the double negatives)
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
38:50
There is no consensus that changes are needed. There is also no consensus that changes are not needed.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
38:50
How about "The EPDP Team could not reach a consensus to change the recommendation, therefore no change will be made"
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
38:59
I like that, Milton
Brian King (IPC)
39:07
I reserve the right to agree with you, Alan :-)
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
39:41
Elegant Milton. Almost plain language, therefore understandable by our public.
Marc Anderson (RySG)
43:30
I can't seem to raise my hand. Can I get in queue
Keith Drazek (Chair)
43:47
Noted Marc, thanks
Berry Cobb
43:56
My hand is yours @Marc
Marc Anderson (RySG)
44:03
thanks Berry
Terri Agnew
44:22
@Marc - have you updated your zoom lately? If not, it may need done. Once updated, raised hand will appear on bottom tool bar.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
44:44
So what language would we use there?
Brian King (IPC)
44:44
+1 Margie, this is not a settled matter
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
45:32
@Margie reasonable point
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
45:38
I would like to see proposed language to address Margie's point
Marika Konings
45:40
Please note that the Council instructions only referenced the first part of the recommendation as being considered whether any updates are required (“Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so”.
Alan Woods (RySG)
45:52
Thank you Marika!
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
46:10
Yes thanks Marika, that is important context
Margie Milam (BC)
46:39
Council instructions were not in the charter
Alan Woods (RySG)
50:45
To be clear on the resolution point - the instructions from the GNSO was asking if based on the discussions of EPDP phase 2a, there was no consensus to change the recommendation made to the 1st part of recommendation 17 (not the ancillary instructions of receommnedation 17) - this was their means to 'resolve the matter. if we have no consensus to change the already approved and board approved recommendation - then the matter is - in the estimation of the council - resolved.
Marika Konings
51:18
For those who want to review the Council instructions, see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020#202010
Alan Woods (RySG)
51:51
That is not an accurate statement.
Alan Woods (RySG)
52:05
our resolution is the fact we do not wish to change the consensus
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
52:17
I agree with Alan W. I think a non-consensus decision is itself a resolution.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
52:19
Alan is correct
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
52:28
or, not changing previous consensus decisions
Brian King (IPC)
52:48
The problem then is that P. 1 Rec 17 will not have consensus
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
52:53
"cannot resolve" is not accurate. "Did not reach consensus on a change" is accurate
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
53:02
Thanks milton
Alan Woods (RySG)
53:22
it already has Brian.
Alan Woods (RySG)
53:31
you may not have agreed with it … but there is
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
53:38
I thought Phase 1 was already concluded and there has already been a consensus vote etc on it
Manju Chen (NCSG)
54:36
and the Board adopted it. or else why would there be an IRT for it
Margie Milam (BC)
55:48
The board adopted it subject to 17.3 — thats what the consensus covered
Alan Woods (RySG)
56:04
which is linked to a review of the documents tha
Alan Woods (RySG)
56:12
- that were not available at the time.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
56:46
A truce, statement, or lack of agreement to move is a resolution. This is frankly starting to sound like the dead parrot sketch.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
56:59
Stalemate, sorry
Alan Woods (RySG)
57:00
we have considered - there is no consensus to change based on them. I think we can call that a 'green check mark' and move on.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:07:00
So when Canada gets a new privacy law does that also trigger reconstitution of this EPDP?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:08:15
Well said, Alan W
Margie Milam (BC)
01:08:25
“We recommend that the EPDP be restarted once the EU adopted of NIS2”
Manju Chen (NCSG)
01:08:26
+1 Alan W
Marika Konings
01:09:26
Note that the GNSO Operating Procedures include a list of illustrative types of outcomes, one of which is “Recommendations on future policy development activities”. This one could be considered to fall under that heading?
Marika Konings
01:09:49
As something that could help inform whether future policy development activities are necessary / helpful.
Brian King (IPC)
01:10:04
Thank you, Marika.
Steve DelBianco (BC )
01:12:48
NIS2 has sections that specifically address ICANN’s over-interpretation of GDPR. If any other national law emerges that is also specifically targeted at ICANN policies, it could be a trigger too.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:13:25
Utterly disagree Margie - we can't keep expecting a circumvention of the PDP process by writing it into a recommendation. There are reasons for the need for issues papers - what you are suggesting here is that we jump head first in with no direction. We don't believe that the policy as it exists prevents compliance with NIS II as it is currently phrased - policy does NOT tell us how to comply with a law , but should not stand in the way of compliance. If the policy does need to be changed (like GDPR response) to get out of the way. An Issues report is the basis of that and we cannot just cast that aside.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:14:11
+1 Alan W
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:15:55
Keith a generic warning that "future developments made need to be considered" could be added to any policy outcome or any document produced by the GNSO
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:16:06
*may need to be considered...
Keith Drazek (Chair)
01:17:09
Thanks Milton
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:18:37
Margie … name 1 current policy that actually prevents the CPs from complying with NIS 2 as it is written today?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:19:03
Still disagree that this rec is going in the right track (ICANN Org should do that work), and disagree that NIS2 necessitates changes like how the GDPR did. I support Alan W's chat comments.
Brian King (IPC)
01:19:37
+1 Margie
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
01:19:52
I agree with Alan W & Sarah, and disagree with Margie.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:20:05
"we can always circle back..." 😩
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:20:47
I note that if memory serves correctly, this group has paid zero attention to the EDPS’ comments on the NIS
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:21:10
I can drag this meeting out by quoting from it if you like.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:21:21
Or create other cybersecurity issues that are quite serious
Manju Chen (NCSG)
01:21:36
keeping the door of EPDP open is creating a very bad precedent for PDPs in general
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:22:14
Honestly I feel like our conversation that we just finished has covered these same points
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:22:18
Not sure more needs to be said on this one
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:23:06
Fully agree Manju - much like contracted parties must follow the policy in our roles - we should ensure that the rule that apply to everyone else are equally as enforceable!
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:23:16
Yes
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:23:41
Agree with Manju and Alan W
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:25:50
can I get in queue
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:26:07
yup
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:26:44
good question, Marc
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:31:35
What stops GNSO Council from accepting input from SOs and ACs now?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:33:03
+1 Volker
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:36:26
+1 Thomas
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:38:19
Attempt at humour?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:38:35
Thanks for clarifying the comment
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:40:41
Hand for Marc
Keith Drazek (Chair)
01:40:50
Got it, thanks
Brian King (IPC)
01:41:02
Completely missed this homework assignment, but looking forward to catching up
Keith Drazek (Chair)
01:41:12
Alan G, is that a new hand?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:41:31
Yes
Keith Drazek (Chair)
01:41:35
Ok thanks
Berry Cobb
01:41:38
Recs #3 & #4 have the greatest qty of responses.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:43:58
Yes or No, Keith!!!
Brian King (IPC)
01:44:09
+1 Milton :-)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:44:11
:-)
Margie Milam (BC)
01:45:07
We made a proposal regarding 17.3 that Keith indicated he’d think about with leadership— so that’s still open
Marika Konings
01:45:47
Of course, specific proposals that have come out of this consideration will be further considered in the context of the development of the Final Report.
Marika Konings
01:46:20
The staff support team has taken note of those during this discussion and we will reflect those in the discussion tables.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:46:31
Thank you Marika
Brian King (IPC)
01:46:35
Thank you Marika and staff
Margie Milam (BC)
01:47:49
+1 Alan G
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
01:47:50
Cybersecurity investigators need access to legal person registration data? Is there a clear showing that legal entities are engaged in abusive activities?
Marika Konings
01:48:15
Note, it is reflected in item #9 in the discussion table for preliminary recommendation #1
Marika Konings
01:48:20
It was not flagged for further discussion
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:51:19
I find it curious that a group that submitted a significant comment has to add a YES to a table to make it clear they meant what they say!
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:53:16
In particular, if a comment is submitted by someone outside of the PDP groups, this process may result in the comment being ignored.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:53:45
+1 Alan we did not know that we need to repeat what has already been written - in all cases discussions are still ongoing through the subgroups
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:54:43
So sorry - but I have a hard stop at half past! thank you all!
Margie Milam (BC)
01:56:49
+1 Brian
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:57:22
At least two readings to each of the issues
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:57:47
Thank you all -bye for today