Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2 Team Call
Andrea Glandon
41:10
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Marika Konings
51:23
Note that the possible designations are part of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: Full consensus / consensus / significant support but significant opposition / divergence
Marika Konings
51:33
The definitions for these can also be found there
Marika Konings
51:47
section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
53:49
transparency, yes
Marika Konings
55:11
Please note that the consensus designations are assigned by the Chair but groups can of course indicate off list or onlist if they do not support specific recommendations that can factor into this process.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
55:43
we just need to hire a combinatorial mathematician, why not?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
55:59
@James, My apologies for this being complicated. But it is.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
57:13
Do all groups get to articulate “conditional support??” Not sure how that is going to work
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
57:14
what kind of conditions are we talking about?
James Bladel (RrSG)
57:22
@Alan - I’m concerned about a domino effect, where one group’s conditions for support are not met, and there is a cascading withdrawal of support.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
57:40
Conditional consensus isn’t one of the designations in the GNSO WG Guidelines. Conditional support of individual recommendations is a new concept, and not sure how it would work, but would make no difference in the consensus level designation.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
58:19
@James, we will attempt to make it as clear as possible.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:00:13
To be clear, "conditional support" means we will NOT support that recommendation as written but could change that based on actions of the GNSO Council.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:00:45
Are you suggesting Council would re-write recommendations? What other actions would they take?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:00:50
minor language change: instead of “due in part because, just say “this was partly because”
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:01:40
@AlanG: That didn’t really clear it up for me, and I’m curious…, what do you mean by “based on actions of the GNSO Council”?
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:02:32
While the masking of personal email addresses is a “valuable privacy-enhancing technology,” the publication of masked email addresses is still considered publication of personal data.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:02:53
Marc cutting out
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:02:55
@Marc is fading in and out for me
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:03:00
same here
Marika Konings
01:03:01
Marc, your audio is fading in and out
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:03:03
Yeah. Marc fading in and out.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:05:18
@Milton: +1
Brian King (IPC)
01:06:45
"legal vs. natural" is far more nuanced than some folks who don't want to talk about it might like us to believe. Are we talking about whether and how distinguishing could be done? Whether the data is characterized at the time of collection? The publication? The analysis at the time of a request? It seems there is quite a bit we could have discussed and come to agreement on.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:07:02
We didn’t have substantial discussions in Phase 2
Margie Milam (BC)
01:07:27
We never discussed in plenary the advice given by Bird & Brid
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:09:16
I believe we did have substantial discussions of it, and I don’t think this is something to get hung up on
Margie Milam (BC)
01:10:30
Delete “substantial” please
Marika Konings
01:10:48
For accuracy there is a conclusion in the report
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:10:59
it was substantial in volume, even if not every information of substance was discussed
Brian King (IPC)
01:11:34
Substantial is subjective, and potentially misleading, and I would disagree with that characterization. It also doesn't add anything. Please remove.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:12:14
compromise: remove “some”
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:12:28
Margie, Brian. let’s try to come to agreement here. This is not an important item. I don’t like the “partly because” but I’m willing to live with it. You can live with “substantial"
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:13:12
Trying to edit text in zoom chat is not entirely effective IMO
Brian King (IPC)
01:13:52
For the umpteenth time, Milton. I will make my own arguments.
Berry Cobb
01:14:01
Marc, your mic faded in and out again.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:14:23
without substantial?
Marika Konings
01:14:26
For clarity, live with the staff version that was circulated earlier today.
Marika Konings
01:14:38
Without substantial
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:15:36
The staff version as circulated was acceptable
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:16:04
better put it up
Brian King (IPC)
01:16:08
Can we see it?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:16:37
thx
Brian King (IPC)
01:16:56
The language above is much better
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:16:57
Blue version is preferable.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:17:11
Blue language good…
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:17:20
I prefer the staff version. Clear and to-the-point with little subjectivity.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:17:50
Modified language.
Ben Butler (SSAC)
01:18:56
Blue version
Marika Konings
01:19:20
How about including the links to the legal memos so everyone can review those for themselves?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:19:22
From Me to All panelists: (11:11 AM)
Frankly, we argued about this matter in a very very substantial way on the PPSAI PDP. Then we referred to that discussion several times on this group. I know that I have repeated my “substantial” suggestion that companies ask governments to regulate online commerce, and with or without that measure, that they figure out a simple way to authenticate themselves as legal persons……always ignored, but still a valid measure whether you want to address it or not (and a long long overdue consumer protection measure). SO unless substantial means a particular desired outcome, we have discussed this matter in a substantial way. However, “ extensive” discussion might solve your problem for you, as “extensive” does not necessarily imply that we ever got to the substance of the matter.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:19:47
the above version
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:19:49
+1 Marika
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:20:38
no to the added language
Margie Milam (BC)
01:21:34
Modification is better
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:21:53
original is better
Brian King (IPC)
01:22:05
Can you call on the raised hands?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:22:16
queue is closed
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:23:34
agree to the compromise
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:23:43
Also agree.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:24:05
So which version are we going with?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:24:10
Now let’s move on. We’re halfway through the call.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:24:15
wise call, rafik
Marika Konings
01:24:49
It just means that the recommendation from phase 1 will still stand
Marika Konings
01:24:58
Because no change has been agreed to
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:24:59
exactly. enough please.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:25:08
I agree with Alan -- the edits provide important context. I also think we need to add the reference to receiving legal guidance.
Brian King (IPC)
01:25:09
The Phase 1 recommendation already does that, no need to state it here.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:25:16
did you agree to it in phase one though? i recall your guys voting against it on council
Brian King (IPC)
01:25:34
This looks like we have reconfirmed it, and we haven't.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:25:57
stating the phase one result is still valid is helpful for clarity
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:26:16
registrar…
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:27:17
There are simply not enough hours in the day to meet this imposed schedule.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:27:50
certainly won’t be if we spend half an hour insisting that we can’t include the word “substantial”
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:31:02
I offered a compromise word.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:31:03
I am not going to talk about the same item that Alan spoke about
Marika Konings
01:31:18
FYI - this is the comment that Laureen provided: “We are concerned that the language may unduly restrict the way the system gets financed with unintended consequences for public safety. This issue really needs further financial and economic analysis to fully consider the impact of the draft restrictions.”
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:31:50
I would like to respond to Marika’s question
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:36:53
But we have debated this part of the report endlessly and 14.2 was agreed language
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:37:42
The restriction on registrants not paying for the costs involved in processing disclosure requests in a CLW item, if amended. I don’t agree with any of the rationale offered on why registrants should pay for the privilege of having their data handed over to third parties.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:37:43
my point is in relation to a different recommendation
Marika Konings
01:37:50
See https://docs.google.com/document/d/10xb5eE3CxTvx5tFNmhsO_F7OdOIRMJFH/edit
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:37:54
I am not sure about the process
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:38:03
My comment was not on Rec 8
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:40:27
What Amr has stated is a well known and oft repeated NCSG position. The registrant cannot be taxed to pay for law enforcement access, nor any other kind of access. This is, with great respect, not the time to open up a debate on the implications of stopping the free and open WHOIS. We knew there were financial implications for all requestors.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:41:49
Sorry…we are still having internal discussions…we haven’t finalized any input on Rec 8 yet
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:42:28
true
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:42:36
@Matt: Understood, and thanks.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:42:55
I was going to talk about a different recommendation
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:43:40
Are we done with Rec8?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:43:43
so now we are skipping back to #34?
Marika Konings
01:44:39
I thought Milton provided some language in the chat yesterday that may work: “The standing committee CAN propose changes that are not policy, and that MAY include disclosure automation”
Marika Konings
01:45:42
I am not sure if it was a proposal or a statement, but it seemed to be a statement of fact and make clear that further automation is not excluded, which I believe is what ALAC was looking for?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:45:48
ok I think Milton’s language could work
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:45:59
I was not sure that it would be added
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:45:59
I will speak about that If I am allowed to
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:47:00
To be clear, my additional question on rec8 did not concern the preamble or the RrSG disagreement, which is why I waited before raising it.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:48:55
I will not be able to talk
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:49:35
Not a fan of the one person per group speaking rule. Limiting our ability to explain ourselves in a satisfactory manner.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:49:55
Milton IGNORED the reference to Section 9.3
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:51:07
I don’t think Milton ignored it. I think the NCSG is just interpreting it differently.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:51:33
When he "quoted" the text, he omitted it.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:53:16
+1 Alan G
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:53:20
If it was rejected yesterday let’s move on
Margie Milam (BC)
01:54:03
Milton’s language doesn’t address 34
Marika Konings
01:55:08
For clarity, the standing committee CAN propose changes that are not policy, which includes disclosure automation.
Brian King (IPC)
01:55:54
@Marika exactly
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:55:55
some forms of disclosure automation. not necessarily all of them
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:56:24
can we reset the clock?
Brian King (IPC)
01:57:06
Thanks, Milton. This is what I'm genuinely trying and struggling to understand: what forms of disclosure automation do you think would be considered policy?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:57:32
let’s say a decision to automatically disclose legal persons
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:58:42
@Milton, that might be an interesting statement if only the SSAD had the ability to recognize a registration from a legal person.
Brian King (IPC)
01:59:48
I also don't understand Amr's request, sorry
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:00:35
we
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:00:38
Thanks, Margie.
Franck Journoud (IPC)
02:00:39
but what if there ARE legal requirements to the contrary?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:00:42
ike that language in there
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:00:47
That's fine with me (remove first phrase on 8.5)
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:00:49
we like
Marika Konings
02:00:58
If there are legal requirements, a CP cannot go against local law.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:01:14
@Marika: yes…, that goes without saying.
Brian King (IPC)
02:01:29
@Milton this seems like a great conversation to have "not" in the chat. I see where you're coming from.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:01:30
Remove. Not sure it adds anything.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:01:36
I object to deleting it
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:01:39
I believe we put that language in there for a reason. There may be local law that requires, for instance, a court order in order to disclose.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:01:52
correct Stephanie
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:02:02
So This phrase is a caveat on the MUSt of the rest of the sentence
Marika Konings
02:02:03
@Stephanie - in that case, local law would trump, regardless of what it says here?
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:02:24
If that’s where we landed, then I’m ok @Alan W.
Brian King (IPC)
02:02:28
Right
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:02:40
Exactly Alan, all recs are subject to the applicable law and c/n override the law.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:02:41
@AlanW: +1
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:02:44
Sure, but does everybody understand that? I think not, we have gone 20 years ignoring data protection law, have we not?
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:03:10
That was of course the concern Stephanie .. but ...
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:03:47
Of all the ugly clauses in this report, that clause is not the ugliest
Brian King (IPC)
02:04:19
the CP is going to follow local law anyway, they've told us time and time again
Brian King (IPC)
02:04:55
Maybe this is why we're doing one speaker per group
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:05:12
I have a hard stop at the top of the hour. Thx.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:05:24
@Brian: maybe that’s why more than one per group is necessary.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:06:43
+1 Amr. Of course, everyone needs to abide by applicable law.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:06:55
Amr is correct, but is that the highest priority to discuss now?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:07:19
The report is riddled with statements like this.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:08:13
@AlanG: It really isn’t of the highest priority at all. Apologies…, but thought I’d share the thought. Was really looking for clarification on the need for this, as opposed to anything else.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:08:15
So what version are we going with.
Marika Konings
02:08:20
No changes
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
02:08:21
will we discuss 8.7.1?
Margie Milam (BC)
02:08:37
When does this call end?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:08:45
I am confused. Are you accepting the deletion of that phrase Absent any legal requirements to the contrary, or not.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:08:52
It was there for a purpose.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:08:56
Now @Milton :)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:08:57
no she said no change
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:09:25
Good it is hard to keep up when there is no scroll capability