Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2A Team Call - Shared screen with speaker view
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
36:55
Welcome all. Please select "All Panelists and Attendees" in chat.
Andrea Glandon - ICANN Org
37:07
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Laureen Kapin
38:26
Happy to save the logistics and docs issues till the end.
Laureen Kapin
38:59
And fully appreciate the support and challenges faced by our great staff.
Berry Cobb
44:01
Link to EPDP Team Question doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMV29jRPQEFGv2psZ2py2_F8cr93OeeA/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
51:28
data consistency is indeed very important
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
55:34
Data that is not public can still be consistenty
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
57:57
I will correct you later, Laureen ;-)
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
59:15
Just summarize Brian
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
59:25
I know I can always count on you to chime in Volker ;-).
zzzJames Bladel (RrSG)
01:00:59
Point of order - Can we ask speakers to stick to the position of their own SG/C position, and not the positions of other SG/Cs. Thx.
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
01:03:26
To clarify the intent of this exercise, we're asking each group to summarize its input to the document on the screen and specifically answer the question whether differentiation should be mandatory and if EPDP Phase 1 recommendation/policy should be amended accordingly. Or not.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:08:53
Some have raised issues about the numbers of small or home-based businesses. Even data related to home-based legal entities (businesses) are not necessarily protected under the GDPR.
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
01:09:27
Stephanie, you're next, thanks.
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
01:12:35
Yes Stephanie, our primary question for today's exercise is whether differentiation should be made mandatory and a change in ICANN policy is required.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:22:08
privacy is also a public interest need and related to security, @Steve
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:23:08
+1 Milton re Privacy being related to security and in the public interest
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:23:31
Steve covered the SSAC position well - thanks!
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:24:16
Love the "open mic" reference. Very specialized audience though ;-).
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:25:29
Our timeline always expected us to wrap up well before those two things are concluded
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
01:27:34
Correct, Sarah
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:28:20
@Milton, Sarah: In the extreme, if *all* of the registration data were non-public but access to non-public data were available to appropriate parties in an effective and efficient manner, you’d have both maximum protection of privacy and maximum support for the other publicly approved uses.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:29:29
Steve, I think that is what we have. Data is redacted unless the domain owner consents to publish, and redacted data is disclosed promptly upon showing of legal reason to have it.
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:31:37
@Sarah: I think there is a big difference between a response in 3 seconds versus a response in 3 days.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:32:14
well I do agree that those are obviously different, but I think the response times set out in phases 1 and 2 are efficient and effective.
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:34:30
I need to drop for conflicting meeting - Steve will carry on for SSAC. Thanks, all!
zzzJames Bladel (RrSG)
01:34:32
Need to drop, thanks Keith and everyone.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:35:08
A multi-day delay for release of non-personal data is not effective, efficient or proportionate.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:38:54
We worked through the timelines in depth in the previous phases, I think we should stick to those decisions
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:39:57
I did not say that any guidance would constitute legal advice. I said there is a thin line.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:40:20
One that less responsible registrars than those gathered here will cross in the interests of cost avoidance
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:41:04
and they won’t cross it if there is no guidance?
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:42:54
I question the assumption that Registrars would push registrants towards disclosure.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:43:46
I do too. But they could do that without any guidance under current policy
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:44:03
Exactly right Keith -- we've heard a lot about concerns that Rgrs would default towards redaction.
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:44:16
No matter what decisions are made here, collection of data regarding each of the interests — privacy, public safety, intellectual property protection, security, etc. — should continue.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:45:04
Steve I am not clear what you're referring to? Where are those data being collected?
Margie Milam (BC)
01:46:42
+1 Brian
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
01:46:48
We have about 15 minutes left so I will draw a line under the queue after Thomas. Then we'll move to the logistics/document discussion.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:46:55
I'd say we are aware, yes
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:48:06
@Sarah: I don’t have a complete picture of what data is currently being collect, but I am pretty certain there is a dearth of data regarding whether the various needs are being met.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:49:04
Yes quality guidance is essential either way
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:49:55
@Steve, if there is an RDDS field (and I believe there must be), it MUST have an unknown value baceuse of the time it will take to fully populate it.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:50:10
Which Keith just said clearer than I did!
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:50:21
I thought this group had agreed to focus only on new registrations? We haven't discussed how to backfill this data, let alone if we should do so.
Brian King (IPC)
01:51:15
We certainly didn't agree to focus "only" on new registrations but do agree that there should be a difference between new and existing
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
01:51:26
+1 Brian
Margie Milam (BC)
01:51:37
+1 Brian
Brian King (IPC)
01:52:03
+1 Laureen
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:52:03
+1 Brian.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:52:06
+1 on Public comment to the mandatory requirement
Steve Crocker (SSAC)
01:52:07
@Owen: Apology for confusion. I wasn’t referring to which data elements are to be collected from the registrant. I was referring to data on the requester side as to whether their needs are being met. This is not a well defined area, so data collection has to be accompanied by clarity as to what aspect matter.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:52:37
@Owen, "Whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation on this topic" would certainly cover changes to the data related to this topic
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:53:40
@Thomas adjusting old data will take time. Never the less any solution should be able to benefit both new and old data types.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:53:49
Agree about the complexities of dealing with existing registrations.
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
01:54:07
it's either "mandatory requirements" or "guidance" for voluntary consideration.
Brian King (IPC)
01:54:18
I'm really just here to hear Alan W riff on Billy Shakes
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:56:38
+1 AlanW regarding how to engage with EDPB!
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:56:50
and Article 40 CoC
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:56:52
Keith, even with new consensus policy, we need guidance on how to implement!
Berry Cobb
01:57:14
Feasiblity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lqLOkF1jaA2NK1hmYtG4jiY4x7V432maFh1Xlv5UeBM/edit
Berry Cobb
01:57:57
Link to Shared drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TW3Z-s6DzS2QsV_VwJ6iUQTvKVIXQrmG
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:58:12
Thanks to Staff for putting the big yellow warning to not use the old doc, that was helpful.
Berry Cobb
01:58:29
Action Item sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8AdVdrRIdrw/edit#gid=0
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:58:51
yes, thank you for the clear marker at the top!
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:00:08
oh that's so handy! I hadn't noticed, thank you
Keith Drazek (Chair) (Verisign)
02:00:19
+1 Alan G about guidance. That could also fall to an IRT to develop and finalize, if policy recommendations are approved.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:03:25
+1 Laureen. We are in document chaos
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:04:02
Also, “Meeting #” is not very helpful, can you put the date these meeting numbers are associated with?
Brian King (IPC)
02:04:49
Need to drop, thanks all
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:04:55
+1 Milton
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:05:10
Thank you all and bye for today
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:05:14
thanks all