Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2 April Team Call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
35:45
Members, please make sure to select all panelists and attendees for chat option.
Matt Serlin (RrSG - joining first hour)
36:19
Congrats to them!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
36:20
congrats!
Terri Agnew
36:20
Oh congrats Matthew!!
James Bladel (RrSG)
36:21
Yay Baby Crossman!
Andrea Glandon
36:22
Congratulations!!
Margie Milam (BC)
36:26
awesome!
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
36:30
Congrats!!!
Eleeza Agopian (ICANN Org Liaison)
36:35
Hooray for some happy news! Congrats to Matt!
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
36:38
congrats to Matt
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
36:38
That is wonderful news!
James Bladel (RrSG)
36:40
SLA Update - Matthew has been promoted to “Daddy”
Brian King (IPC)
36:41
Congratulations, Matt! Thanks for sharing, Marc.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
37:13
good news to lift our spirits at the start
James Bladel (RrSG)
39:26
Marc, your audio is breaking up
Berry Cobb
40:40
Rec#9-DD Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y_LqTjBFuGYhyocnF03CCDt1JIPiE3iOtw-cm-hH8AI/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
41:06
Perfect thanks
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
47:33
+1
Terri Agnew
48:14
**five minutes of silence will start now for reading**
Berry Cobb
48:23
Link to PCRTs & DDs: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=126430750
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
48:31
SILENCE
James Bladel (RrSG)
48:52
And by what facility are we caucusing? This assumes back-channels like Skype or Slack, right?
James Bladel (RrSG)
49:18
I mean, I’ve never heard of a conference call breaking up in to small groups...
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
50:46
cant zoom do breakout rooms?
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
53:00
Please enlarge the document font.
Terri Agnew
53:00
**audio is back**
James Bladel (RrSG)
54:42
Thanks, Caitlin
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
54:46
frankly I see nothing wrong with devoting some of the call time to these “caucuses”
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
55:02
it can actually help productivity
Margie Milam (BC)
55:49
The BC did too
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
56:02
Hopefully next time everyone will submit comments prior to silent time
Brian King (IPC)
56:25
thanks Caitlin
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
56:43
I am afraid I have another call I am missing, will have to leave
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
56:49
We hear you well
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
56:50
You’re coming in loud and clear, Laureen.
Margie Milam (BC)
58:09
+1 Laureen
Brian King (IPC)
58:11
+1 Laureen
James Bladel (RrSG)
58:34
Disagree with Laureen
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
58:42
I thought we cleared this up on Tuesday? That the number of commenters would not add weight to input?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
59:32
@Amr the logic behind the comment is the most important
Margie Milam (BC)
01:00:10
number of comments can show concern from different stakeholders
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:00:10
@Hadia: Agree on the logic of the comment being more important than how many commenters agree with it, especially if it is logic that we have not previously considered.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:00:48
My concern with giving weight to the number of comments is that this might encourage astroturfing in public comment periods.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:01:03
Well…, one of my concerns, at least.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:01:45
+1 Laureen
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:02:07
@Margie: Aren’t most stakeholders represented on the EPDP Team, which will be taken in to account during consensus calls?
Margie Milam (BC)
01:03:03
public comments often come from parties that don't participate in specific SGs -- that's where they are helpful
Brian King (IPC)
01:03:15
+1 Alan
Brian King (IPC)
01:03:42
in fact, cyberattacks often increase over holiday periods when bad guys know that good guys are running on skeleton staff
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:04:15
@Margie: You’re right, of course, but wouldn’t their interests normally be represented. So, for example, a civil society org could submit a public comment, even if it isn’t a member of the NCSG, but that doesn’t mean that CS is not represented on the EPDP Team.
Matt Serlin (RrSG - joining first hour)
01:04:17
keep in mind, this is only for data requests not for reports of abuse which, as you point out, there is a requirement in the RAA (3.18.2) which would still exist
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:04:24
Agree with folks that logic and reasoning behind comments is very important. Sheer numbers should not be dispositive.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:05:32
@ Matt - RAA 3.18.2 doesn't give you access to registrant contact data
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:06:27
If "it was discussed" is a reason to dismiss comments, then it will make our submitting comments FAR easier, because it would be a waste of time.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:06:37
@Laureen: +1
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
01:06:42
Clarification: Volker and I worked on a separate section. But my concern applies
Matt Serlin (RrSG - joining first hour)
01:06:51
No but my point is if there’s an urgent abuse issue that needed to be addressed within 24 hours, why could the non-public data even matter at that point?
Margie Milam (BC)
01:07:39
Matt_ it helps resolve the problem and help identify other domains that may be related to the attack
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
01:08:06
But if one side gets 101 comments = WINNING
Brian King (IPC)
01:08:27
I find the number of comments supporting a given position to be informative, and not necessarily dispositive
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:09:13
Matt, it’s a good comment. The importance of redacted Whois data in a true urgent emergency is being vastly overstated here
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:09:23
@Brian: +1
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:09:58
Good points, Alan
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:11:03
Considering what Rafik just said, shouldn’t there be a third column in these tables with proposed responses to the comments by the EPDP Team?
Brian King (IPC)
01:11:03
When RySG puts their comments in the Google doc, I note that the instructions ask us all to propose suggested changes.
Brian King (IPC)
01:11:25
Probably better to do it in writing vs. on the fly on this call
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:11:46
we shall of course try! :)
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:14:13
I’m sorry, what is the relevance of COVID19? Industry and law enforcement are all over this.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:14:24
+1 James - I'm at a loss
Margie Milam (BC)
01:15:06
@ James - that's not my experience --
Matt Serlin (RrSG - joining first hour)
01:15:18
https://rrsg.org/registrar-approaches-to-the-covid19-crisis/
Matt Serlin (RrSG - joining first hour)
01:15:43
I don’t know that going down this rabbit hole is useful to our work but since Hadia raised it I thought I’d share that
Matt Serlin (RrSG - joining first hour)
01:16:01
just as one example of what I know are MANY efforts by folks in this industry
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:16:03
@James we should consider a path for truly urgent requests that require urgent responses, we are not saying that this is how most requests should be treated we are talking about urgent circumstances
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:16:28
are we talking about the comments yet?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:16:49
@Milton: Not really.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:16:56
lets get on with it
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:17:05
@Milton, no, because we were told we can ignore comments if the issue was already discussed.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:17:23
Agreed - urgent are considered truly urgent - not because the requester subjectively believe their own need to be 'urgent'.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:17:47
That does appear to be a support of LEA only in certain circumstances.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:18:12
@AlanG: fwiw, I agree with your concern. I’m not sure if submitting objections to topics already discussed is helpful at all, but may at least serve the purpose of having the objections of a comment on-the-record?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:18:17
let’s not ignore comments, let’s go through them. One response could and should be, “we have hashed this issue out before, of course. But let’s do get on with it
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:18:37
@Milton: +1
Margie Milam (BC)
01:20:25
+1 Brian
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:20:27
@Milton we just don't want to ignore the comments just because the issue was tackled before
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:20:30
+1 Milton and if we can we highlight somehow input that sheds new light every time WE make our intervention and position ourselves the better. But please move on.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:20:31
+1 Brian
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:23:13
I would add that the corresponding concern is that 24 business hours may be too long a time period to respond to urgent requests.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:23:19
I’m still not clear what we’re doing
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
01:23:29
+1 James
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:23:45
@James: +1. Which comment are we reviewing right now?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:24:03
+1 Milton to not ignore the comments
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:28:11
@MarkSV: We need to have a central decider for priority 1 requests, or in general? Sorry. Just trying to understand.
Matt Serlin (RrSG - joining first hour)
01:29:01
I need to drop but Theo is filling in for me for the remainder of the call
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
01:29:59
Amr: For Priority 1, need to have a central decider whether something qualifies and whether evidence is adequate
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:30:10
Thanks, Mark.
Brian King (IPC)
01:30:11
@Amr, I'd prefer in general :-) in seriousness to your question: we need a central decider as to the question of whether a request is truly urgent
Brian King (IPC)
01:30:34
(what Mark said)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:30:50
@Brian: Thanks. Aware that you prefer a central decider in general, but was just seeking clarification for the purpose of this discussion. Thanks again.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:31:27
So it is clear therefore that we all agree that additional detail as to how 'urgent' is defined and decided ….. is that not an agreement with a number of the individual comments?
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
01:31:54
For purpose of this Priority One discussion, please limit my comment to Priority 1 centralization :-)
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
01:32:25
+1 Alan. That seems to be the main take-away from these comments
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:32:27
Thanks, Mark. That’s helpful.
Brian King (IPC)
01:32:42
I'm with you there, AlanW
Terri Agnew
01:32:53
**5 minutes of silence for reading period starts now**
Terri Agnew
01:38:05
**We have resumed the meeting**
Brian King (IPC)
01:42:52
In the UDRP/URS context, there is no "decision" to disclose.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:45:58
https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/smernice/guidelines-22019-processing-personal-data-under-article-61b_en
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:46:47
Check paragraphs 27 through 34.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:47:18
is that existing policy compliant with law, Alan?
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:47:35
Administrative proceedings (SUCH AS response to UDRP or URS, for example) , etc. - that is far broader than URS / UDRP
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:48:20
nope I wasn't …
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:49:39
@Volker, you ALWAYS have the option of not releasing information with a specific due cause.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:52:28
+1 Brian
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:53:17
+1 Brian lets wait for Bird & Bird answers to the legal committee questions
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:54:35
@Stephanie: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:55:29
@AlanW: +1
Terri Agnew
01:57:44
**5 minutes of silence for reading period starts now**
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:57:54
i am enjoying these 5 minutes of silence
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:59:26
Are you meditating Milton?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:02:28
yes, meditating on the holy script of the phase 1 report. it is blissful
Terri Agnew
02:02:48
**We have resumed the meeting**
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
02:14:00
SSAC suggested longer-term research could be Priority 3
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:14:42
hahaha
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:16:00
Prio 1 is life or death!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:16:08
yes
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:16:17
routine fraud requests are not
Berry Cobb
02:16:29
I think the group should consider the context of safeguards and audits. If P1 gets abused, wouldn't the requestor risk losing their accredidation?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:16:55
Berry not if we establish as policy that 90% of all requests are P1
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
02:18:26
I can volunteer
Berry Cobb
02:18:30
or any Priority for that matter.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:20:19
Link to this discussion table, please?
Berry Cobb
02:20:26
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NSxjQokvWM1lqhSUk-5gTsy7SlWP04S5mdDPLb_9AVo/edit#
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:20:31
Thanks, Berry.
Berry Cobb
02:25:22
It will be helpful for groups to also contemplate how this huge recommendation can be broken down into more consumable parts. Ex. Should Signed Assertions become its own rec?
Brian King (IPC)
02:27:45
Thanks, Caitlin. You answered my question about timing for homework
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:28:54
Have to drop off thanks all.
Berry Cobb
02:29:00
in goog form, and in suggestion mode.
Brian King (IPC)
02:29:34
Excellent Vanna White work with the mouse, Berry.
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
02:29:37
dueling comments
Brian King (IPC)
02:30:00
Milton it's never stopped you from making our arguments for us previously
Brian King (IPC)
02:30:03
:-p
Berry Cobb
02:30:07
hahahaha
Mark 'marksv' Svancarek (BC)
02:30:10
I was on a Doodle poll recently where th esettings were wrong and we all could change each others' preferences
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:30:42
better than Zoom bombing…Doodle anarchy
Berry Cobb
02:32:04
all good. thx
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:32:25
Thanks all. Bye.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:32:28
Thank you Rafik and all