Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2 Team Call
Terri Agnew
02:56:27
We have started
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:57:06
still reading
Marika Konings
02:59:04
The easy fix may be to add in 16.4 that supporting info needs to be submitted with the notification and remove ‘supporting documentation’ from 16.6?
Marika Konings
02:59:17
But leave the ‘further details will be determined in implementation’.
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
03:00:43
+1 Stephanie, it could be very commercial info not for the public
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:01:05
@Stephanie - obviously published if not confidential
Marika Konings
03:01:46
@Stephanie - note that this is not about individual cases, but about an exemption of a category of automation use cases.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:01:53
Not obvious.
Brian King (IPC)
03:04:45
"input" is better in 16.6
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:08:37
Yes but it may be specific to certain jurisdictions. E.g. New privacy law in New Zealand…may have clauses relevant there that would preclude automated processing . Cannot be automated there, do we change the whole system?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:09:22
(This is a hypothetical, I have not studied the new law yet)
Marika Konings
03:09:23
@Stephanie - that is what this exemption process aims to address.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:09:55
Exactly, I think we understand this …am I missing something?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:10:33
What is a “bis” anyway?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:10:44
Change in numberinh
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:11:16
When you already have a numbered clause and you need to insert a new one, saves renumbering on the fly
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:11:28
Thanks. :-)
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
03:12:12
Make it “ICANN” and not “ICANN Compliance” because it might not be Compliance that would do the review. Let ICANN decide how to route the request
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:12:14
I agree with Hadia, who determines what is reasonable
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
03:12:24
if you put a bis under a bis, it’s a son of a bis
Brian King (IPC)
03:12:46
lol
Marika Konings
03:12:46
@Owen - we already changed ICANN Compliance to ICANN org.
Brian King (IPC)
03:12:56
Thanks, Owen. More accurate
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
03:12:57
OK, thanks Marika.
Brian King (IPC)
03:13:08
Owen's right
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:15:53
ok sure lets go ahead
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:16:22
Agree that there should be some kind of process. Just wondering how it’d work, and how to reflect that in our recommendation.
Brian King (IPC)
03:17:21
Can't delete it
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:17:26
No
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:18:45
@Brian so lets say so in the recomendation
Brian King (IPC)
03:18:54
Right
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
03:20:39
icann doesn’t grant exemptions, it recognizes them
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:21:03
There is no decision to accept the exemption. The exemption is based on a notification, isn’t it?
Marika Konings
03:26:15
(To repeat) Something to think about during your break, but on 16.4 bis, would a possible alternative be to add a footnote in 16.3 where it says ‘commercially’ that says something like: “"During implementation, further consideration will need to be given to the commercial feasibility for registrars that may receive a very limited number of requests that will meet the criteria for automated processing of disclosure decisions and whether the financial burden of enabling this automated processing is of such a nature that an exemption may need to be provided. As part of this consideration, the CGM also should consider how it can facilitate the integration of a CP’s system with the SSAD to reduce any potential burden of automated processing of disclosure decisions.”
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:27:50
I like it. I would prefer to have it in the text itself, rather than a footnote, because it is important.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:28:50
Footnotes in a policy should be avoided wherever possible.
Alan Woods (RySG)
03:29:02
……. is it just me … but that’s not automation.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:29:14
@AlanG: I don’t understand this at all?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:29:18
"The SSAD MAY use human review for any automated SSAD decisions, but there may be specific classes of disclosure requests approved for automation where human review MUST be included"
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:29:29
Footnote to 16.11
Marika Konings
03:29:42
I believe that the disclosure part would still be automated, but the review may require human involvement?
Brian King (IPC)
03:29:50
I would prefer to include the language Alan G provided
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
03:29:51
What does this mean? Apologies, but find it confusing.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:29:55
This is quite confusing.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:30:49
Obviously, I hope, whoever is managing the SSAD is a human and will be reviewing the effectiveness of the instrument.
Alan Woods (RySG)
03:31:22
The human review is part of the disclosure decision - and automation in the disclosure that had human review - is not automation. It’s human review.
Alan Woods (RySG)
03:31:43
I’m unsure what is being solved here.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:34:36
+1 Alan W
Brian King (IPC)
03:36:32
+1 Alan G on the genesis of this
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
03:43:05
@Alan - the JCA would be the natural home for such topics.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:43:52
@Thomas, Yes, of course.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:48:00
Grammatical catch: in line for, it should either be “ask the contracted Party etc, or request that the Contracted Party provide.....
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:48:16
line4
Marika Konings
03:48:39
This is not a prohibition
Brian King (IPC)
03:49:37
Ok, thanks. Good to go
Brian King (IPC)
03:52:54
B&B said it was
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
03:53:15
It will depend on the jurisdiction
Daniel Halloran (ICANN.org)
03:54:14
Minor request to facilitate implementation discussions: can we please number these implementation guidance paragraphs?
Marika Konings
03:54:25
Noted :-)
Daniel Halloran (ICANN.org)
03:54:31
Thanks!
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
03:56:52
+1 Brian should that read ICANN/ CP's?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:58:02
+1 Brian ICANN or CPs who else? The CGW is ICANN
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
04:03:03
Agree with deleting as n/necess. given REc. 19.
Brian King (IPC)
04:03:17
+1 to delete
Margie Milam (BC)
04:03:30
+1 delete
Brian King (IPC)
04:03:55
And this sounds important. It's better captured by the actual policy, as opposed to implementation guidance.
Marika Konings
04:04:09
For the record, this paragraph does not appear in recommendation #19.
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
04:07:31
+1 Volker
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
04:07:57
+1 Volker
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
04:07:59
yes, please
Brian King (IPC)
04:10:29
Marika's birdies sound happy :-)
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
04:10:32
Correct, GAC provided input and was accepted.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:10:46
@Brian: They do. They sound happier than any of us do!!
Brian King (IPC)
04:11:00
Amr you read my mind lol
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:11:30
:-)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:14:00
Can Milton be promoted back to a panelist, please?
Andrea Glandon
04:14:11
Done!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:14:17
Thanks, Andrea.
Andrea Glandon
04:14:21
You’re welcome!
Milton Mueller
04:14:26
merci beaucoup
Brian King (IPC)
04:16:00
Laureen's language is far better
Margie Milam (BC)
04:16:29
Laureen’s language is better
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
04:18:42
thank you!
Mark Svancarek (BC)
04:19:56
+1 Stephanie regarding metrics
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
04:22:54
looking at the time of denials is a bad metric. Compliance should use the % of denials as a metric in relation to other registrars.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
04:23:41
but we didn‘t start the fire
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:23:46
@Janis: Well…, lighters. ;-)
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
04:24:16
a good bbq fire does not smoke. unless you use bad wood or coal
Margie Milam (BC)
04:24:55
I’m dropping off - SDB will be my alternate for the rest of the call
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
04:25:22
we are cooking now
Brian King (IPC)
04:26:35
Can Dan answer my question? Could ICANN enforce "MUST provide reasonable access" (if in the actual policy rec)?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:27:07
Like Laureen said earlier, the “issue” may be with the disclosure requests themselves. Not necessarily a problem with the registrar.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:29:27
@Volker: +1
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
04:29:34
+1 Volker
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
04:29:48
Agree with Volker
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
04:29:55
To deal with Dan's concern, I suggest adding "typically", ICANN Compliance will not typically address the merits . . ."
Brian King (IPC)
04:30:07
We're in fact not far enough if the policy is not enforceable.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
04:30:40
Typically in wrong place agree with Laureen
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
04:30:58
Typically, ICANN will not address...
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
04:31:59
Ok with Milton's formulation too --
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
04:35:56
+1 Janis
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
04:36:34
it allows host country but also allows multiple countries
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
04:36:46
I agree with Janis to restrict it to host country
Brian King (IPC)
04:41:03
Leave it
Mark Svancarek (BC)
04:43:27
We discussed it recently but did not enumerate the list of "rationales"
Mark Svancarek (BC)
04:43:38
I am OK to leave in implmentaion
Mark Svancarek (BC)
04:44:44
BC was OK to remove "written"
Mark Svancarek (BC)
04:45:52
It shall be "documented", but "written" makes it seem like a detailed effort as opposed to a simple selection from a list of rationales
Brian King (IPC)
04:48:13
I thought we decided that the full rationale must be created and provided to the Requestor in the response. But the "drop down box" reason needs to be conveyed to the CGM.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
04:49:01
Correct, this comment is solely in regard to what is stored in CGM
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
04:49:24
And fade to black…. (very Hollywood!)
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
04:50:02
@Brian @Mark that makes sense, thanks
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:50:46
Suggestions for changes, concerns and also questions on financial sustainability.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
04:53:41
Thank you Janis for your wise leadership. You have helped us all through this process
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:53:43
Thank YOU, Janis!!
Brian King (IPC)
04:53:53
Thank YOU!
Eleeza Agopian (ICANN Org)
04:53:59
Thanks to you, Janis!
Daniel Halloran (ICANN.org)
04:54:09
Thank you Janis!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
04:54:38
we are all envious of the fact that for you, this is ending
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
04:54:41
Janis
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
04:54:53
Thank You Janis
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
04:55:47
Cheers Janis, thank you
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
04:56:11
Here, here
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:56:12
Indeed. @Laureen: +1
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
04:56:16
+1 Laureen
Steve Delbianco (BC)
04:56:34
I truly admire your skills, determination, and persistence, Janis.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
04:56:38
+1 Laureen
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
04:56:43
oh that is nice
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
04:56:58
Thanks very much Janis.
Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Liaison)
04:57:30
I have a drink…:-)
Owen Smigelski (RrSG)
04:57:49
Is it OK to have a drink at 11:30am? Asking for a friend
Brian King (IPC)
04:58:04
I need a drink
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
04:58:23
LOL. You’re died and gone to heaven
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
04:58:36
We wish you all the best
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
04:58:43
Thanks, Janis. Thanks all. Bye.