Hello. I need to leave after 90 min today.

@Tara, noted

Hi all!

Yes, one moment

Yes- I agree given where we landed

Same

Agreed

Legal memos / input wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/thFIBg

Agree its still relevant

I need to drop after 60 minutes, by the way.

@Brian, noted

Noted brian

sure i can wait

so Margie are you contending that the EPDP is also redoing accuracny policy?

It's in our scope and was pushed to Phase 2 in our Phase 1 report

disagree on the scope question.

importance to third parties is already built in to ICANN policy. This legal question will not affect in any way policy consensus in the plenary

EPDP Phase 1 Report says: 6 The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOISAccuracy Reporting System.

This Territorial Scope question is probably more relevant now that we're talking about a hybrid model. When we asked the question previously, we only asked about the centralized model and the consequences of ICANN's office in Brussels.

Agree with Matt

Is that what the hybrid model contemplates - that automated decisions would be centralized?

Yes

No, Becky, the hybrid model contempolates disclosure decisions made by CP's

Yes - we have 2 examples - LEA and UDRP/URS providers- in the Initial Report

Yes we have two centralized automated use cases

The CP is releasing the data but ICANN is making the decision

Well, what about the option of them disclosing as joint controllers :-)

It‘s the broken record again, sorry!

Exactly!

I believe B&B addressed this in their first memo - even in a highly centralized and automated system the CPs would remain controllers

Thank you, Becky.

I think this needs to be coupled with the legal vs. natural question . . . I don't think its helpful to ask one without the other

+1 Laureen

+ 1 Becky

+1

Great, thanks!

Thank you Becky for redrafting the questions

Phase 2 Legal Memos wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/SKijBg

- Addressing the feasibility of requiring unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address across domain name registrations at a given Registrar, while ensuring security/stability and meeting the requirements of Section 2.5.1 of Appendix A

Text from the Annex: Important Issues for Further Community Action

I am not sure that based on the answer we got we could make a recommendation in this regard

I need to drop now

Thanks, all.

City field is important for governing law in jurisdictions where that differs (e.g. Philadelphia and Pittsburg are in different US Federal Court districts, though they are in the same state).

Goodbye

+1

Thanks for confirming SSAC legal/natural question is going forward.

Bye all

thanks