Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
34:37
There has already been a boom of divorces in China as soon as the quarantine ended...
Hadia Elminiawi
39:11
hello all
James Bladel (RrSG)
40:24
Sounds good.
Marc Anderson (Verisign / RySG)
41:06
+1 - sounds good... I know the experience hasn't been great for observers, so this seems better for them.
Brian King (IPC)
42:34
+1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
42:34
@Berry: Ah…, thanks and apologies. When you mentioned “audio cast”, I thought you were referring to something else.
Terri Agnew
42:40
Switching to webinar zoom for EPDP-P2 team calls will be same webinar usage we used during ICANN67
Berry Cobb
48:18
If you get the error, you will need to delete the offending entry. Again, please use the char count feature on doc mgmt. tool of choice.
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
49:23
Sorry for being later
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
49:26
Weather issues here have been more disruptive than covid-19 related problems. Frequent loss of electricity and running water.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
49:38
…, but I suppose that’s a personal issue.
James Bladel (RrSG)
52:37
I agree with Stephanie’s last point. We are all volunteers, and there is more competition for our time. Not everyone’s workload has decreased.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
52:41
@Stephanie: +1
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
53:27
I must say I support Stephanie's comments.
Berry Cobb
55:04
P2 items are not considered a part of the critical path to get to a final report on SSAD.
Beth Bacon (RySG)
55:12
I support an extension.
Berry Cobb
55:23
If we extend the PC by just 5 biz days, we will not make our 11 June deadline.
James Bladel (RrSG)
55:34
Marc’s proposal sounds reasonable.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
55:34
Speaking for myself, would prefer an extension as opposed to accepting comments on the main initial report during the comment period for the addendum. Will make the review process easier.
Berry Cobb
56:54
The option to extend by 5 biz days can be made up with 6 or 8 hours per week of meetings over the current 4.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
57:27
6 or 8 hours per week is also a major problem in current conditions
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
58:15
+1 Julf -- 6-8 hrs a week is simply not a reasonable ask.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
59:41
Is Berry breaking up for everybody, or is it just on my end?
Terri Agnew
59:49
He is clear on my end
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
59:55
Thanks, Terri.
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
01:00:02
Circumstances have changed quite a bit since that discussion with Keith
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:00:29
I think some perspective is necessary here. In the vast universe of work not getting done, the EPDP isn’t the tragedy we’re making it to be.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:00:37
This conversation is SURREAL given the changes that are happening in the world and the number of other REALLY essential services that are being cancelled.
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
01:00:39
+1 James
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:01:25
+1 Alan
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
01:01:54
+1 everybody if it helps us move to the next agenda item
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:03:34
I agree with Alan, SURREAL is a good word to describe this conversation. As I have said, it shows the priorities of ICANN and eats away at its credibility. It is a freebie for us in civil society who would like to ridicule its public accountability.
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:03:51
Janis, when will you leave as chair?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:04:14
I accept that
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:04:15
I think that is an important factor for our work tbqh
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
01:05:13
My audio has been perfect so far.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:05:41
My audio is not great
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
01:05:45
Will this “extended” comment period be communicated publicly?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:08:23
@Hadia: Same here. Switched to mobile network.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:09:32
@Amr my audio is now good
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:10:01
@Hadia: Mobile Internet working better than ADSL right now. Glad your audio’s fixed.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:12:25
@Amr ADSL is good at my end
Berry Cobb
01:12:39
@Owen - there is no extension, but the other public comment forum which opens on 24 March will mention that those that were not able to to current events to submit comments, they can do so on the priority 2 public comment forum. It will be helpful though that groups to flag by 30 March whether they will submit further comments on the initial report so that staff and the EPDP can plan accordingly.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:13:25
@Hadia: Glad to hear it.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:13:28
That is really confusing.
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
01:14:14
@Berry- thanks for confirming.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:14:30
+1 Becky
Margie Milam (BC)
01:14:48
+1 Becky
Brian King (IPC)
01:15:07
@Becky, thanks. Agreed. We can support based on that Purpose 2 for SSR.
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:16:56
@Amr: what’s the conflation?
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:17:17
between Octo and ssr
Margie Milam (BC)
01:17:35
Our support for not having a separate OCTO purpose is based on agreeing on the new Purpose 2 as shared by the Board
Brian King (IPC)
01:17:41
Same
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:18:51
There is no way to in detail delineate what SSR support will mean in the future.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:19:04
@Franck: I might have misunderstood, but it sounded like the two were linked for some reason.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liasion)
01:20:18
Research is highly relevant to SSR
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:20:39
I don’t recall OCTO saying they need redacted registration data for research? Did I miss that?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:20:51
Ok thanks
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:20:56
Correct, Amr
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:21:25
Which part is the formulation?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:21:41
Thanks for the highlight.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:23:44
Don’t cry for me accuracy purpose, we’ll keep our distance, don’t make a problem...
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:28:36
the whole call
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:28:55
Wasn’t that the case with whois too?
Berry Cobb
01:29:12
Per Item #4, the Council encourages the legal committee to still submit questions on Accuracy as we have funds available now to seek advice.
Berry Cobb
01:29:30
It will help inform future discussions on this topic.
Brian King (IPC)
01:30:34
+1 Laureen
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:30:47
Oooh, another balancing test\?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:30:50
+1 Alan
Margie Milam (BC)
01:30:58
+1 Laureen
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:31:51
+1 Laureen and Alan
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:31:59
Good to see that your spirits remain high Volker :-).
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:32:59
always
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:33:02
In all seriousness, a balancing test would need to be done if burdensome accuracy checks would be required of RNHs.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:33:12
Heck, I get to spend more time with the family...
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:33:56
As I have said with tiresome repetition, the comparators might be data requirements of other service providers including banks and public authorities.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:34:34
Of course, a fulsome PIA might have uncovered these issues in more detail
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:34:59
+Georgios. This may not be SSAD, but it was part of Phase 1 and to defer it again is very problematic.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:35:33
The legal advice we received so far says that we’re in a better position to evaluate the adequacy of existing accuracy obligations, and to what extent those are sufficient for GDPR compliance. A number of us believe we’re ok on that front. Further work on accuracy may still be done in the future, but only fair that it is properly scoped in advance.
Berry Cobb
01:35:49
As suggested by the Council, it encourages this EPDP's Legal Committee to submit its questions to B&B. It should be done now, as we have the funds now. As I recall, the NCSG was the only group opposing the submission of these questions to B&B.
Brian King (IPC)
01:36:26
Thanks, Berry. Fully support sending the question to B&B as the Council advised.
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:36:33
@Berry I am confused we submit questions but we keep it out of scope?
Berry Cobb
01:37:16
It is still in scope, but decoupled from the SSAD so that we can deliver out final report on the system. Else we resikj delivery by 3 to 6 months given the complexity.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:37:26
Berry, that part of the council's recommendation was unclear b/c it referred to a legal "memo." What I see based on your statement, is that we should submit the accuracy "questions" to the Bird and Bird. Correct?
Berry Cobb
01:37:49
@Laureen. Yes.
Berry Cobb
01:38:05
We have the funds now.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:38:25
@Margie: Not exactly true. We never agreed on the importance of the EPDP handling accuracy. We agreed to defer the topic to phase 2, because we had a deadline to publish the initial report for phase 1. There was no time to settle the issue back then. There was no promise to come up with final recommendations on the topic.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:38:56
Regarding any compromise in Phase 1, is my recollection incorrect the
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:39:05
@Berry since it is in scope and the council said that we can go ahead and submit the questions lets go ahead and do so.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:39:14
That the IPCBC rejected that compromise at the council level?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:40:28
By rejecting that phase 1 report, they essentially disagreed with everything that was in it.
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:40:46
@Marc not only "desirable" but necessary
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:40:53
it’s not desirable and good, it’s a legal obligation
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:41:23
And already implemented sufficiently to meet any potential legal requirements
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:41:46
IPC/BC approach to data accuracy is all wrong anyway (at least from a GDPR perspective). Data accuracy is a data subject’s right in GDPR. IPC/BC is trying to leverage this to penalize CPs and registrants, when accuracy of registration data doesn’t live up to whatever level of accuracy deemed desirable. This requires more policy development beyond what is an issue in GDPR.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:42:38
The concern doesn’t seem to be the registrant’s right to its data being accurate, but rather that SSAD users have a right to accurate data instead.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:42:42
Agree with Marc. Previous comments make it sound like we’re throwing out any commitment to accuracy, when we are simply standing on status quo.
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
01:43:34
Wasn't dissatisfaction with the status quo the impetus for the discussion in the first place?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:43:44
Accuracy is improving day by day as more domains fall under the scope of the 2013 raa
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:44:07
@amr: it’s a right that this EPDP is going to ignore. data accuracy may have other benefits (eg for SSAD requestors), but data should be accurate
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:44:53
Many will be surprised how data accuracy is going to improve since the data is not illegally published.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:45:40
@Franck: Data accuracy measures already in place are just fine. Most importantly, from a GDPR perspective, registrants are able to flag and correct inaccurate data, when/if discovered.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:46:00
@Thomas: +1
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:46:36
@Marc, no one is disputing that CP requirements for accuracy are still there. But if we hare learning anything from the Corona virus, it is that measurement and understanding where you are is critical.
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
01:46:58
@Thomas, although the concept that redaction results in more accuracy *might* be true, I don't think I have seen any reports to support it - is it speculation, or demonstrated by data?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:48:00
@MArk, if we were measuring accuracy, we might know! ;-)
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:48:57
Bye all. Stay safe everyone.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:49:01
Bye all.
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:50:16
thanks take care
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:51:53
Que sera, sera, whatever will be will be
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:52:13
I found it difficult/impossible to try to estimate the numbers myself. Looking to others who have more experience with this.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:55:46
When asking Bird and Bird for advice on this issue, it would be important to specify precisely why the data needs to be more accurate. Is it preventing LEAs from making an arrest? How likely is it that ICANN requirements will force criminals to provide accurate data? How often does inaccurate data lead to SS issues? How fast do malware and phishing attacks occur after registration, and can fulsome accuracy checks be done in that timeframe?
Berry Cobb
01:55:55
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YtLHw4ASPOLwI_77bXGJrGypCHzYePQ5vaIWXzPatww/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:56:49
If we have good, well measured data on any of my questions above I would love someone to steer me to the link....
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:58:58
@Berry: Thanks for taking a first stab at this.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liasion)
02:02:06
Apologies all, must drop off now
Berry Cobb
02:03:34
Please make sure you are in SUGGESTION MODE.
Berry Cobb
02:09:31
@Chris, so are all of those expecting to become accredited? Or will they pass the requests through the few groups that are accredited?
Berry Cobb
02:10:46
Request processing is automated, and in some cases disclosures would be automated.
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:10:57
On the topic of finding some actual numbers I wanted to flag that Tucows has recently published actual request numbers.
Berry Cobb
02:11:00
All CP disclosures that require human review will be manual.
Francisco Arias Correa (ICANN Org)
02:11:06
Thanks, Marc
Francisco Arias Correa (ICANN Org)
02:11:42
yes, it makes sense, Marc
Berry Cobb
02:11:44
@Beth, I reviewed Tucows numbers. While far from precise it was my starting place for applying that number across the CPs > 200K DUMs.
Marc Anderson (Verisign / RySG)
02:11:52
ok, good... sorry if I wasn't clear earlier
Berry Cobb
02:12:48
<<< to make clear, my part was far from precise. Not suggesting their numbers are.
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:14:19
@Berrry. Great!
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:15:43
two
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:17:37
If you are going to permit an accredited entity to have thousands of users accessing data, you are going to have to seriously ramp up on the accreditation oversight.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:18:04
At the moment, that oversight is rather trivial.
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:18:42
probably only hundreds of users per agency though max
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:19:39
Even that is a bit of an oversight nightmare, unless you want the DPAs in there investigating complaints every other month. One way to dump your audit costs on another entity I suppose, not one I would recommend.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:21:33
I would at least foresee admin investigations having a different portal than LEAs.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:22:02
It will depend on the structure of each country’s investigative processes,, no??
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:22:19
Re: Consumer Protection, at least in U.S., FTC is a civil law enforcement agency. So we are law enforcement. Whether we would use the same portal as criminal law enforcement is something TBD.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:23:25
Precisely Laureen, these distinctions and authorities will be different in various other legal systems. But I am not the lawyer, of course...
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:25:08
Wouldn’t national authorities with many users represent a significant cost because of relatively high volume of disclosure requests, processing them, keeping logs, reviewing the logs for compliance purposes, etc…?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:26:12
I’m guessing that an accredited national authority could result in more disclosure requests than a small private sector accredited entity? Just thinking out loud.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:31:20
Sorry have to leave now.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:35:12
I need to drop off now as well. Thanks all. Bye.
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
02:39:29
I need to drop off
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
02:39:35
i can stay on
Eleeza Agopian (ICANN Org Liaison)
02:40:02
I need to step away for 2 mins. Francisco and Aaron are here. :)
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:40:24
Will have to go too
Berry Cobb
02:41:58
These 4 bullets were pulled from the Initial Report
Eleeza Agopian (ICANN Org Liaison)
02:44:16
I am back. Thank you.
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:47:32
need to drop thanks all
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
02:48:19
sounds good
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
02:53:35
same
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
02:54:56
2 years is good unless allegations of abuse
Marc Anderson (Verisign / RySG)
02:56:53
I was going to suggest 1 year, but Its hard to estimate without knowing how involved a re-accreditation process is.
Franck Journoud (IPC)
02:57:26
sorry have to drop. stay safe y’all
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
02:59:03
Janis has convinced me that re-accred should be similar to a passport renewal - 5 years, if I understood him correctly
Marc Anderson (Verisign / RySG)
02:59:47
2 is fine for estimation purposes
Mark "marksv" Švančárek (BC)
03:01:35
no problem
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
03:03:30
Need to drop off.
Marc Anderson (Verisign / RySG)
03:04:27
+1 Eleeza, thank you
Eleeza Agopian (ICANN Org Liaison)
03:04:38
Of course.
Eleeza Agopian (ICANN Org Liaison)
03:05:20
We’ll do that today. Thank you, Janis.