Thx Terri set

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

hello all

You're a gluten for punishment for attending this webinar. ;-) Hope you are well!

Great to see so many (59 at this time) attendees today in addition to the GNSO Council at this webinar

Indeed. Welcome to all observers!

do we have understanding why local law enforcement needs ICANN at all? it is all already in the local laws

The presentation slides are posted on the wiki agenda page and GNSO Calendar. https://community.icann.org/x/XAKbC and https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep

Question please: who is allowed to use the SSAD? Anyone or only someone who is an accredited requestor?

@Marie, only Accredited users may submit requests.

@Marie, only Accredited users may submit requests.

Thanks Berry - but is that limited to LEAs/governments?

question, who is going to check if the entity is still have a permit to act on behalf of some TM? and how often.

question, are LEAs actions going to be logged?

@Marie - It is not limited to just LEAs/Governments. Required for all entities.

@Marie - everything gets logged

@Maxim - MUST keep the information required for accreditation and verification up to date and inform the Accreditation Authority promptly when there are changes to this information. Any changes MAY result in re-accreditation or re-verification of certain pieces of information provided.

Thanks. Berry.

how do we know that claims of priority 1 are not fake?

@Maxim - CPs are to evaluate the request based on its merits. The CP has the ability to downgrade to a lower priority or if there's an indication of repeated abuse, can inform the Central Gateway Manager.

foreign LEAs sometime have to be reported according to the local laws prior to any actions, and it might take more than a day (before permit to answer)

that is what LEAs 'like', some third party from another country to track their actions

Is the "purpose specified" for the disclosure request specific to the request (ie made on a per request basis), or it the accreditation given for a certain remit of "acceptable requests" made to the CGW? Eg with Caitlin's earlier example of Coca Cola, supposing you can demonstrate "you own the brand", where is that remit defined?

Per request

Thanks

(Of course I could be wrong - but that’s my understanding)

was sharing fines with the requestor, who leaked, considered?

We have agreed that we are voting on two separate packages, yes?

Councilors: to ask a question, click the Q&A box and type in your question or raise your hand

is it possible to read questions from panelists, we can not use q&a

Hi Marie, that is the current proposal from the small team, with no alternatives put on the table.

Thanks for the confirmation, Keith.

I can not use mic due to late time

@Councilors, please type your question in this chat area

@ Marie, if you are asking about the SSAD and priority 2 recs in the Final Report, the idea is that those are considered separately, but this may happen as part of the same motion (allowing for voting on individual resolved clauses). If you are asking about priority 2 items not addressed, as Keith noted, those are considered separately.

please, read my questions upper in the chat

@Maxim - I think we responded to your questions in the chat. Can you repost which one we missed?

That is correct, Rafik. Voting threshold for Board depends on whether voting threshold is met by Council, not related to support achieved by EPDP Team.

not answered question: do we have understanding why local law enforcement needs ICANN at all? it is all already in the local laws

Michele: because SSAD doesn’t give us any automated disclosure, charter questions remain unanswered, consumers remain unprotected. And no, it's not a toy.

Thanks Caitlin: we had understood that there would be 2 votes on 2 packages, not on individual clauses.

question: how to downgrade automated request to manual request (concerns of fake request, for example)?

local party has to response to the local LEAs, if those follow the procedures prescribed in the local laws

I understood Maxim’s question

the combination of this and the fact that those LEAs will be tracked - gives answer, most probably SSAD not going to be used outside of five eyes countries

@Marie - both are options for the Council to consider but they basically have exactly the same effect / impact. Having two motions would just mean duplication of whereas clauses instead of packaging it into one.

Ah - gotcha - thanks Caitlin!

huge cost annually

almost 100m in 10 years

sobering thought indeed

what happens if ICANN does not have funds to support the SSAD?

They go to their sources of funds and look for more money

higher invoices to CPH?

CPH invoices will result in higher prices for all registrants

Michele: do you mean that the RrSG may vote no?

Marie - no

we vote as ordered to do, it is in our charters

I will vote as instructed

I don’t have any leeway

Understood; thanks.

the same, registries vote as instructed to

(So does the BC, for the record).

Next council meeting is 24 September at 12:00 UTC.

So that’s two votes then?

It is one motion but with the ability to vote separately on resolved clauses - which has happened before.

Bye all, thanks for an informative webinar and discussion...

number of votes equal to the number of buckets

Thanks for this webinar to all!

thanks all for this late call

Thanks all. Very helpful.

Thank you all.

Thank you all, bye