
22:37
Hello. I need to leave after 90 min today.

23:25
@Tara, noted

24:45
Hi all!

24:49
Yes, one moment

26:17
Yes- I agree given where we landed

26:22
Same

26:23
Agreed

27:31
Legal memos / input wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/thFIBg

28:29
Agree its still relevant

34:54
I need to drop after 60 minutes, by the way.

35:01
@Brian, noted

35:11
Noted brian

36:37
sure i can wait

39:45
so Margie are you contending that the EPDP is also redoing accuracny policy?

40:50
It's in our scope and was pushed to Phase 2 in our Phase 1 report

41:45
disagree on the scope question.

43:13
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

45:04
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.

51:44
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.

54:04
Agree with Matt

55:07
Is that what the hybrid model contemplates - that automated decisions would be centralized?

55:15
Yes

57:08
No, Becky, the hybrid model contempolates disclosure decisions made by CP's

59:43
Yes - we have 2 examples - LEA and UDRP/URS providers- in the Initial Report

01:02:26
Yes we have two centralized automated use cases

01:03:18
The CP is releasing the data but ICANN is making the decision

01:03:50
Well, what about the option of them disclosing as joint controllers :-)

01:03:59
It‘s the broken record again, sorry!

01:04:12
Exactly!

01:05:09
I believe B&B addressed this in their first memo - even in a highly centralized and automated system the CPs would remain controllers

01:06:11
Thank you, Becky.

01:07:26
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

01:09:15
+1 Laureen

01:10:31
+ 1 Becky

01:10:35
+1

01:11:30
Great, thanks!

01:11:43
Thank you Becky for redrafting the questions

01:12:26
Phase 2 Legal Memos wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/SKijBg

01:14:35
- 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

01:15:00
Text from the Annex: Important Issues for Further Community Action

01:15:10
I am not sure that based on the answer we got we could make a recommendation in this regard

01:20:49
I need to drop now

01:20:51
Thanks, all.

01:21:33
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).

01:21:43
Goodbye

01:25:27
+1

01:27:45
Thanks for confirming SSAC legal/natural question is going forward.

01:28:06
Bye all

01:28:07
thanks