Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2 Team Call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
32:38
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Terri Agnew
33:12
Members, please select all panelists and attendees chat option
Berry Cobb
33:43
https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report+-+Phase+2
Berry Cobb
35:54
Rec3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dde62eeOfCvf6qcbnXoLdYFF4Oum0RN2sz2jBuBm6yw/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
38:15
Can you confirm that the versions posted are final?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
38:24
I collected a few about 3 days ago and it looks like they're slightly updated since then
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
38:32
Thank you Marika
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
38:44
Can do!
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
41:26
saturday belongs to the family. it is not a workday
Beth Bacon (RySG)
42:40
Thank you Marika, Berry, and Caitlin for this crazy amount of work.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
43:09
+1 Beth
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
51:23
+1 Beth
Mark Svancarek (BC)
51:39
+1 Volker
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
51:41
+1 Volker. There needs to be some sort of abuse handling, details can be fleshed out later
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
52:07
oops..
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
53:50
CPs can always refuse disclosure based on clear reasons
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
55:48
+1 Janis
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
57:21
MUST and SHALL mean the same thing , though??
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
57:25
not again!
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
57:42
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
57:47
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
57:52
So, let's move on :)
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
58:26
Oh -- I wonder if the suggestion is that some should become lower-case 'shall' instead of capitalized meaningful SHALL
Brian King (IPC)
58:30
Let's pick one and use it consistently
Mark Svancarek (BC)
58:39
I'd prefer to consistently use
Mark Svancarek (BC)
59:13
consistently use a single one
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
59:49
Amr - we do. I think this question was if some should move from defined terms to non-defined regular-use 'shall'.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:01:02
Agree with Marc - seems like we should change that paragraph but not the latter two
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:01:08
they seem more like Policy than guidance
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:01:28
We could move the highlighted portion to implementation guidance
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:02:38
OK by me
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:10:13
so wouldn't that just be two different requests?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:10:18
if it's two different marks being infringed
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:10:25
or more, if the infringement is different in each
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:12:17
Marika, that is my understanding
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:13:26
If the rationales are different, e.g. one counterfeit and one phishing, then those should be submitted as separate requests.
Marika Konings
01:14:14
Bulk requests are those that apply to multiple domain names for which all the disclosure request information is the same.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:14:31
I thought we had a requirement that the SSAD can divide up th requests by CP as needed
Brian King (IPC)
01:14:32
Thank you, Marika. That's how I understood it.
Marika Konings
01:14:32
SSAD would determine where the request would need to go and relay accordingly.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:14:51
Agree with Marika but I didn't think that was what Brian K had described...
Marika Konings
01:15:58
Each request would still considered on its own merits - it is purely about avoiding having to duplicate the requests for which the info is identical.
Steve DelBianco (BC)
01:16:47
Batch okay. Bulk not okay
Marika Konings
01:16:52
Bulk does not appear in the implementation guidance itself, to reassure everyone :-)
Brian King (IPC)
01:17:05
That is reassuring, Marika!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:18:22
@Milton: Yes.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:18:44
That should probably be in the recommendation itself, as opposed to implementation guidance.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:19:56
I disagree that batching 100 requests is more expensive than sending 100 individual requests. They still arrive at the CP as 100 individual requests
Berry Cobb
01:20:25
@Milton, we've been feasting on dinner for 6 weeks. ;-)
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:24:09
If requestors pay per request and submit a request for 100 domains with the same basis/etc, but which are across 5 registrars, do they pay once or 5 times or 100 times?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:24:27
we don‘t want to incentivise bulk requests
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:25:14
We are violently and incoherently agreeing! The 100 requests are indeed charged at the 100 request rate. But I had to push the Send button fewer times when I sent them
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:26:11
and incoherent
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:26:18
:-P
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:28:17
@AlanG: It’s never free. Someone will always have to pay for it. If the requestor doesn’t cover the cost, the cost will be shifted to other stakeholders, won’t it?
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:28:28
Sorry all, I need to drop off early for (recurring) conflicting meeting. Ben will cover for SSAC. Thanks!
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:28:50
Yes, but as Chris is saying, the accreditation agency may be funded centrally and not use a per-accred fee.
Brian King (IPC)
01:29:55
MUST is a suggested change, not "retained" just FYI
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:29:56
@Amr supporting the public good benefits all stakeholders
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:30:01
@James: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:30:39
@Hadia: I’m not arguing for or against that. Just saying, as James just did, that the cost doesn’t go away, and needs to be paid by someone.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:33:07
If we are going to keep “MAY” then we need to define which users will not be required to cover the costs of their accreditation. And to my knowledge, we haven’t done that yet.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:33:17
+1 James
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:33:27
If we agree that financial sustainability is based on a cost-recovery basis, that would suggest that the cost needs to be recovered from fees paid by other SSAD users, doesn’t it?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:34:31
@James moving to must with a disclaimer could solve this issue
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:34:37
Then they can pay through the applicant
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:34:44
Like the bill can go to the applicant and they can ensure someone pays it
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:35:01
Correct Sarah. They still pay, but we don’t decide or limit where they’re being reimbursed
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:35:50
Having a bill go out that the applicant forwards to someone else Is just not practical.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:37:08
@Alan agree forwarding a bill to someone else does not work
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:37:59
If the applicant doesn't ensure the bill gets paid, what is a practical alternative? In my experience doing customer billing and account management, it's hard to get paid especialy if the actual accountholder/user is not the one doing the payment
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:38:04
I’m not sure forwarding a bill to a 3rd party is something we can practically recommend. How would this be enforced?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:42:25
but that's not a third-party, then it's either the applicant or the accreditation authoirty
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:42:33
which i'm fine with
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:42:36
but doesn't match what alan g proposed
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:43:54
I agree the current language d/n address the concerns.
Brian King (IPC)
01:46:15
That sounds good, Laureen.
Brian King (IPC)
01:46:27
Strikes the right balance
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:47:54
It's "waived" not "waved."
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:48:20
Yes
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:48:42
Good edit
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:48:46
+1 Amr
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:48:59
amr+1
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
01:49:09
+1 amr
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:49:28
Can we get clarification on what "explicit additional charges" means?
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:51:07
Hi folks - Dropping early today. Owen Smigelski will step in for the RrSG. Thank you!
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:51:47
I really don't think Registrants should be paying for this system
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:52:03
we said data subjects MUST NOT bear the costs. the registrants are the data subjects
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:52:51
+1 Sarah.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:53:01
Well said, Volker
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:53:02
@Volker: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:53:38
Yeah…, agree with Volker on all this.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:53:39
subsequent running of the system happens on a cost recovery basis
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:53:46
@Sarah: +1
Steve DelBianco (BC)
01:54:34
What if applicable law REQUIRED disclosure. Would the cost of that disclosure mechanism be borne by requestors?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:56:03
it is not THEIR data, it is their DATA
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:56:04
For this SSAD system? Sure. Alternatively, the requestor can come right to the registrar and request the data for free.
Brian King (IPC)
01:56:29
This is a hard, worked-out compromise. We wouldn't want to change it
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:56:57
maybe I’m missing something but if ICANN subsidizes how do you avoid the fact that ultimately registrants are paying for disclosure?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:57:54
or the other requestors subsidize the freebies...
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:58:51
exactly Becky
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:00:14
The “their” still needs to go.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:00:26
Makes the sentence mean something totally different.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:00:28
+1 Amr
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:00:35
only a little bit...?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:01:11
That sounds good to me.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:03:22
@Volker: +1
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:03:38
+1
Brian King (IPC)
02:04:04
What about the 40+% of registered name holders who are not "data subjects" - may they pay for natural person registrants' data to be disclosed?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:04:35
they shouldn‘t either, brian
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:05:05
we could habe simply said. fees should not go up or new fees introduced to finance ssad
Brian King (IPC)
02:06:49
I haven't heard anything to convince me to change the existing language
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:08:16
As Laureen said, it should be "waived"
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:08:27
(That's a "cannot live with" right there.)
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:08:35
implementation
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:08:40
;-)
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:09:45
yes
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:09:50
Change the last sentence to "The EPDP Team also recognizes that governments may be subject to certain payment restrictions which should be taken into account in implementation.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:10:23
Love it
Brian King (IPC)
02:10:38
<3
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:10:38
I'm very effusive.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:10:51
You know we revere you Janis --
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:10:54
LOL.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:13:08
Agree with Alan W
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:13:39
@AlanW: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:13:56
@Volker: Exactly.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:15:30
Oh god love them!
Marika Konings
02:15:30
we will try :-)
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:16:03
Sure
Berry Cobb
02:17:44
Maybe we combine these two paragraphs to better make the connection?
Brian King (IPC)
02:18:22
Can we all get historic cost refunds for time served in EPDP?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:19:03
If we automate and CP's costs go down, good for them!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:19:05
@Brian: LOL!! Count me in!!
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:19:57
works for me
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:20:41
what does it mean for current CP costs to be considered?
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
02:20:47
that suggests ICANN may not recover development and deployment, only operations
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:20:49
like, what is the practical effect?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:20:58
no objection to remove
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:21:48
@AlanG: +1
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:22:03
That sentence was put in for a reason!
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:23:01
Add after "historic costs", "(that is, the costs born by contracted parties prior to the SSAD)"
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:23:27
but "borne by contracted parties prior to the SSAD)" is not the same as "costs for developing, deployment, and operationalizing" which is what Marika referenced
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:23:52
yes, janis, we are
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
02:24:50
agree Sarah, but not sure the language says that.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:25:06
@Becky: +1. Requires clarification.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:25:22
Becky - right, so we should figure it out
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:25:53
@Marc: +1
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:26:44
Keep as I’m running out of time - this is the start of the potential foot note …. “Given the potential for legal uncertainty and the heightened legal and operational risk on all parties included in the provision of the SSAD, creation of a legal risk fund refers to the creation of a suitable legal contingency plan, including but not limited to appropriate insurance cover, and any other appropriate measures that may be deemed sufficient to cover potential regulatory fines or related legal costs. “
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:26:51
Not perfect by any stretch … but .. time …
Brian King (IPC)
02:27:01
I'm unclear how CP costs would be calculated, recovered, etc.
Brian King (IPC)
02:27:14
I like AlanW's language as a good starting point for reivew
Berry Cobb
02:29:19
Note there is a week of no calls for groups to do homework.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:29:29
Thanks, all.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:29:37
Ok Berry thanks
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:29:37
Thanks all. Bye.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:29:39
Thanks everybody
Berry Cobb
02:29:42
And if homework is done and groups prepared, maybe we complete in 2. ;-)
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:29:43
bye all