Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2A Team Call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
32:11
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.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
45:49
boring? perish the thought!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
45:56
this is scintillatin
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
46:37
Quantification *is* a word....
Berry Cobb
49:37
Thanks Milton. A new word I will file away for future use. ;-)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
50:15
there’s usually a “g” at the end of it
Berry Cobb
50:50
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11AYCPVEKjF--Obp-okojggWv1Z4R2PBjvZFOGu4blTM/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Mark Svancarek (BC)
52:13
Milton: "itg" isn't a word
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
52:22
groan
Mark Svancarek (BC)
52:41
#dadjoke
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
52:54
Mark’s puns can be actionable under ICANN standards of behavior?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
57:08
@Steve, requirement to make option available to make public was a phase 1 rec.
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
59:07
@Alan, thanks. Marc is speaking to this point now. If so, then the wording in the document needs to be amended.
Berry Cobb
01:01:45
Hand raised too please.
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
01:01:51
Got it, Berry
Brian King (IPC)
01:03:01
That would be fine, Keith. Happy to.
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:03:28
I agree with Brian. All accesses are mediated, so “publish” is a shorthand for “this data is marked as ok for anyone to have access to it.” Another shorthand for publish is “this data element is marked as public.”
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:04:17
Those definitions are fine, but we actually need to use them. Recently we have use "disclose" for the public RDDS (since the RDAP process has a request phase).
Brian King (IPC)
01:04:58
@Steve, agreed.
Melina Stroungi (GAC)
01:06:11
indeed makes sense
Brian King (IPC)
01:06:22
FYI, that is already a requirement in the RAA
Berry Cobb
01:06:27
The topic has moved on, but to Alan comment earlier, ICANN Org provided an update to the P2A team on Rec #6 from Phase1. The email was sent 1 March from Brian Gutterman.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:06:29
Agree with Marc A.
Berry Cobb
01:06:46
No need for hand.
Stephanie E Perrin (NCSG)
01:07:19
We should not misuse the word “publish”, by making it synonymous with “make available upon request.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:07:35
that was an old hand
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
01:07:41
Ok thanks Milton
Berry Cobb
01:08:55
I'll note for clarity, these are definitions in the draft policy for EPDP-P1 implementation of consensus recommendations.
Berry Cobb
01:09:29
The "Disclosure" definition is not defined in that IRT, but was used in EPDP-P1 Final Report.
Brian King (IPC)
01:09:59
To clarify my comment on the RAA, it's already a requirement to provide clear information to the registrant about how the data will be processed and by whom. We can do even better to include the bit about how the legal/natural distinction would impact that, so I'm supportive of Marc's suggestion to consider that language as (potentially binding, TBD) guidance.
Stephanie E Perrin (NCSG)
01:10:05
Unfortunately, we were still using words Humpty Dumpty style in phase one. Not that I wish to reargue these issues….but it is less than clear.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:11:26
LOL
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:16:52
nothing is easy for Chrysler
Keith Drazek (Verisign) (Chair)
01:20:21
Alan G, will come back to you next.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:24:46
WHOIS is indeed dead
Steve DelBianco (BC)
01:27:31
Wait, national laws may be enacted to require publication of registrant information. Then Whois comes back to life?
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:27:50
I need to drop off this call early - Steve C will carry on for SSAC. Thanks all!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:28:07
Bye Tara
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:29:12
Thank you for your precision re: the WHOIS protocol. It strikes me that what folks are really talking about is that domain name registration contact data is no longer completely public.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:29:25
Apologies, I must drop off now.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:29:25
The EWG studied that question years ago and confirmed that very few ordinary people are even aware of whois
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:29:57
Now we have RDAP and RDS
Melina Stroungi (GAC)
01:29:58
Thank Owen. This was not what I said. My main point was that redacted information is problematic, especially when non-personal data are not protected so there is no reason why they should not be available
Brian King (IPC)
01:30:17
Let's stay focused on the suggestions in the Google doc
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:31:51
+1 Brian
Stephanie E Perrin (NCSG)
01:32:09
Publishing data puts people at risk. I would note that while there is a strong public policy reason to publish motor vehicle licence data, that decision to make the data public was rescinded after it became evident that stalkers and malfeasors would abuse it. How anyone who is aware of cyber fraud can argue for exposing more individuals recklessly to whoever can track them down just mystifies me. There is a public responsibility here to protect individuals, whether they are legal or natural persons.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:32:59
@Alan W we agree there is no such thing as zero risk
Manju Chen (NCSG)
01:33:34
+1 Alan W
Brian King (IPC)
01:35:54
+1 Fine to include that disclaimer, Volker.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:39:44
Thanks for these constructive comments, Milton.
Melina Stroungi (GAC)
01:41:42
+1 Alan
Alan Woods (RySG / Donuts)
01:42:12
but all persons can be accredited
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:45:57
@Alan, that may be technically correct, but the SSAD is FAR from in production and even when it will be, the service level commitments for non-critical requests is measured in WEEKS.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:46:16
Brian King: “I am. not a cat!” ;-)
Jan Janssen (IPC)
01:47:38
+1 Alan (Greenberg)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:47:39
there should be mandatory differentiation of cats
Brian King (IPC)
01:47:40
ha you can't prove that, camera not on :-)
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:48:06
@Alan, I agree with you, but I think many, perhaps most, of the people involved with the SSAC thought process restrict their attention to requests that are neither public nor involving a request accompanied by legal paperwork such as a warrant. This leads to (at least) three distinct pathways for requests, 1. public requests, 2 SSAD requests, 3 law enforcement requests
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:48:10
well let’s waste those 12 minutes post haste
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:49:17
Further, as Alan Greenberg suggests, there is some question as to what requests are processed automatically and which may involve manual review.
Brian King (IPC)
01:49:41
Your first interpretation of what I said is correct
Brian King (IPC)
01:49:45
Not the second
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:50:16
thanks Brian
Manju Chen (NCSG)
01:51:09
let the kid speaks!!!! ;-)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:51:28
Children stakeholder demands to be heard
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:51:41
CSG = Child Stakeholder Group
Alan Woods (RySG / Donuts)
01:51:47
*update we continue to work on our document - apologies for the tardiness. To help answer Volker's excellent point.
Melina Stroungi (GAC)
01:52:09
good question
Caitlin Tubergen (ICANN Org)
01:52:33
Nothing from me - thanks, Keith
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:52:54
“CSG” is a name collision. But KSG, Kinder Stakeholder Group, is available :)
Steve DelBianco (BC)
01:53:00
What will be our process to resolve differing comments on this document?
Brian King (IPC)
01:55:23
BTW I only ask staff to do it because we've been asked to comment only
Steve DelBianco (BC)
01:56:06
That discussion will be easier if staff first resolves the non-controversial comments
Caitlin Tubergen (ICANN Org)
01:58:40
Agreed, Keith - thank you!
Brian King (IPC)
01:58:51
Thanks, Keith.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:59:17
Thank you all bye