Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2 Team Call
James Bladel (RrSG)
34:29
Good morning all
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
34:47
Hi all!
Andrea Glandon
36:45
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
37:07
Bad audi from Rafik
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
37:23
Rafik, you are breaking up a bit.
Milton Mueller
37:28
audio is bad too, heck with his car
Matt Serlin
37:42
Better now...
Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Liaison)
38:19
disappaearing
Matt Serlin
38:19
Whoops…lost him
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
38:20
Cut out now
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
38:26
no sound
Milton Mueller
38:56
maybe a dial out?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
39:19
+1 Amr
Milton Mueller
39:23
LOL
Volker Greimann
39:38
too bad
Milton Mueller
39:46
the internet gods are trying to tell you something, Rafik
Julie Bisland
40:25
Please stand by while we dial out to Rafik
Matt Serlin
40:26
Oh and no adding 10 minutes onto the end of the call to make up for lost time :)
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
41:37
Again cutting out.
Marika Konings
41:56
@Alan - it may be on your end this time around? Audio loud and clear on my side.
Andrea Glandon
42:04
Rafik sounds okay on my end
Marika Konings
42:45
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16BICriVfOPiEeve4A-x6TYKPbgRKqvhX/edit
Margie Milam (BC)
49:51
+1 Brian
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
50:27
I don’t think it’s correct to say all parties were in favor of a centralized model…
Berry Cobb
50:37
Link to Cat 1 Input doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16BICriVfOPiEeve4A-x6TYKPbgRKqvhX/edit
Brian King (IPC)
50:38
@Amr, all parties except NCSG favored the centralized model
Marika Konings
51:46
Would a possible compromise be to follow Chris L’E’s suggestion that although some preferred the centralized model, the group has put forward the hybrid model (or something along those lines)?
Margie Milam (BC)
53:18
I’d prefer that the report describe the disagreement among the parties on this point
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
53:44
Yeah I can accept it too
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
54:09
we know that, Brian.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
54:20
Welcome to the world of multi stakeholder compromise and consensus
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
55:17
No one said “everyone rejects the centralized model” it says not “everyone could accept the centralized model”
James Bladel (RrSG)
55:52
I worry about setting the exception that more centralization is somehow inevitable. The legal/regulatory environment could get WORSE. See ECJ decision last week.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
56:24
Or BETTER, depending on one’s perspective ;-)
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
56:37
@Milton I was trying for an accurate reflection the team did not reject but came to a compromise...
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
57:11
we’ve already said we would accept Alan’s minor language change
James Bladel (RrSG)
57:17
And I meant “Expectation” not “Exception”. Sorry
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
57:34
I think we perhaps need to reflect why the centralized model was possible - based on the legal advice from Bird & Bird and consultation with the Belgian DPA, we determined that that a fully centralized model could not legally achieve the diminishing of liability that was a pre-requisite for implementing such a model
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
57:52
@Chris. in coming to a compromise we had to reject certain options (centralized, decentralized)
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
58:25
whoops - *not possible
Brian King (IPC)
59:37
@Matt I'm not sure that we "determined" that (not to my satisfaction, anyway), but yes, I think noting that is at the root of our deliberation/disagreement would be wise.
Marika Konings
01:02:34
@Amr - the Council is ‘strongly discouraged’ but it is not required to do so.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:02:37
@Marika: On the first item, Matthrew’s language should be considered when revising the language:
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:02:39
think we perhaps need to reflect why the centralized model was possible - based on the legal advice from Bird & Bird and consultation with the Belgian DPA, we determined that that a fully centralized model could not legally achieve the diminishing of liability that was a pre-requisite for implementing such a model
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:02:41
We cannot "INSTRUCT" the Council. But we can try!
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:03:09
why don’t we just say we prefer this to be adopted as a package and move on.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:03:15
yes
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:03:33
+1 Thomas
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:03:38
It says "must", not "MUST". So the IETF implication are not there.
Marika Konings
01:03:46
exactly, Alan :-)
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:04:22
speculation is not the best use of our time
Brian King (IPC)
01:04:48
+1 to Thomas' suggestion
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:06:58
let’s try, Amr!
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:08:39
I agree with Marc on procedures, but that being said, the words are good.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:09:48
yaaawnn
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:09:52
lol
Marika Konings
01:10:23
We can make clear that the interdependency is for the SSAC recs?
Marika Konings
01:11:02
Sorry SSAD
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:23:26
If we need input, give us a chance to comment.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:23:28
what did you propose?
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:23:46
we should try to actually resolve easy issues and reduce the number of open items.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:23:48
we don’t need that!
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:23:48
So we are saving discussion on the items marked with "Proposals" to the end of our discussion today or on Wednesday?
Marika Konings
01:24:04
@Laureen - it will depend on how much time is left :-)
Marika Konings
01:24:14
The hope is also that some proposals can be accepted without needing further discussion
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:24:31
we can’t know whether they will be accepted unless we can discuss them
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:24:48
My concern is that the items marked with Proposals actually raise some challenging issues. I don't want them to shortchanged.
Marika Konings
01:25:02
@Milton - input has been encouraged on the google doc
Brian King (IPC)
01:25:24
I note that many groups have reviewed and responded to the proposals in the Google doc. IIRC that was our homework.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:25:29
we don’t need to listen to people reading what is on the Google doc, Marika
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:27:44
Part of the resistance you're hearing is because we were informed that we would discuss this in order, one by one. Now we are skipping some for the end of the process and some of us are concerned we will not get a meaningful opportunity to discuss and resolve them.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:29:25
+1 @Laureen
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:29:34
this is not a good procedure
Margie Milam (BC)
01:29:39
+1 Marika
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:30:12
ok, so NOW WE DISCUSS, right?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:31:06
what is outside of the charter? What recommendation does it conflict with?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:31:13
Sorry Alan…what isn’t part of our charter?
Marika Konings
01:31:33
Yes - as outlined in Rafik’s email, all those items for which QUESTIONS have been identified, are for discussion now, for all those for which a PROPOSAL has been identified, the idea was to introduce the proposal, not to discuss it, to allow groups to think about whether they can accept the proposal and the group can move on (without further deliberation) or whether there is a need to come back to it.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:32:36
+ Chris
Brian King (IPC)
01:33:40
+1 Chris
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:33:54
there is a mistake in Chris’s analysis which I will explain
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:36:24
Our mandate was clear. General privacy protection may be admirable and we could have a PDP on it, but t hat is not this EPDP.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:36:32
Please don’t cut this important discussion short with this arbitrary 10 minute limit
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:36:50
+1 Amr.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:37:35
Can someone explain the idea of competitive disadvantage? That argument has never made any sense to me
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:37:42
sure, I will
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:38:51
we are not managing time, we are managing policy development.
Brian King (IPC)
01:39:06
Unfortunately I think you mean "level of consensus", Rafik.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:41:21
Alan has already spoken. Chris has already spoken on this. How is it that Stephanie and I cannot?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:41:47
I have a specific new point to make
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:45:22
Why are we not using the time?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:45:40
Per speaker?
Margie Milam (BC)
01:47:53
+1 Marika
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:50:05
we agreed on one
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:52:52
So then let’s remove the calendar days altogether and keep it as one business day
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:52:53
I hadn't realized we could use this process to re-open issues where we were not happy with the results.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:55:07
The existing 24hr rule is for Law Enforcement requests, which are easier in a way.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:55:26
and a lot more rare
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:55:48
you should see some of the “urgent” disclosure requests we see...
Marika Konings
01:56:17
@Volker - but if those do not meet the criteria, a registrar can recategorize it as a priority 3 request.
Marika Konings
01:56:26
For which there is a different SLA
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:56:39
but still has to do that in the time for the urgent one
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:56:45
Volker, in the current system there are no safeguards against bad requestors, whereas this policy would implement such safeguards
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:57:00
would’ve could’ve
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:57:51
Rafik, I actually did raise a possibility to deal with this.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:58:01
legal vs natural comes to mind. or accuracy. how many days have we wasted on addressing those topics?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:59:31
objection
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:00:59
Noting again that denying a request is always the fastest response.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:02:26
Any denials need to be justified --
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:02:32
That’s the unfortunate & unintended outcome of time-limited review processes.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:03:27
@Laureen apparently the justification will be "I didn't want to staff this function and I wanted to go on vacation"
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:04:22
thanks mark, lets go back to business days then
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:11:58
am I misremembering? sorry if that is the case.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:12:32
Anyway: When Rafik asked if there were any objections, only Volker responded. Even if Volker speaks for all Registrars, that is only one of the many groups in this EPDP, so should we allow one objection to block consensus? Still not clear what we are trying to do here today
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:14:41
indeed, I thought we were trying to resolve differences, not just state them
Marika Konings
02:15:09
@Mark - part of the objective is indeed to better understand what remaining cannot live with items may remain and cannot be resolved which will factor into the consensus designation process. But obviously the goal is to try to resolve as many as possible.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:15:09
in germany, tax authorities were buying cds with leaked evader data left and right...
Marika Konings
02:17:05
What is ‘may
Marika Konings
02:17:10
Is changed too ‘should’?
Marika Konings
02:17:29
That allows for flexibility but makes the expectation clear?
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:17:55
Would be happy with SHOULD
Marika Konings
02:18:08
Trying again, what if ‘may’ is changed to ‘should’?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:18:29
will be
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:19:06
Victims?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:19:26
if you order the music, you pay the band
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:20:17
It is very clear in their report that there will be fees.
Margie Milam (BC)
02:20:22
Its part of maintaining the security and stability of the Internet as a whole
Margie Milam (BC)
02:20:48
Its part of ensuring a safe ecosystem
Brian King (IPC)
02:20:50
@Amr, yes some of the cost. All registrants benefit from the SSR of the DNS.
Marika Konings
02:21:28
Note that the current language says ‘may’
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:23:43
If BC/IPC are right about SSR of the DNS being fundamental to the internet, then registrants are the main victims, yet they seem to be suggesting that those victims should pay
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:24:00
We are hearing two different position from different Rr reps
Margie Milam (BC)
02:24:50
“Should” is ok
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:24:53
I can accept SHOULD
Brian King (IPC)
02:25:08
ok
Marika Konings
02:26:57
Please note that the current language says ‘may’.
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:27:44
@Amr we were at MAY
Margie Milam (BC)
02:27:47
This is implementation guidance so using MUST is inappropriate in any event
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:28:00
We cannot keep on re-opening decisions that we made LONG ago and have not changed in recent report versions.
Marika Konings
02:28:11
Exactly, Chris - the language is ‘may’, there was a proposal to change it to ‘must’, and the compromise proposal is to change it to 'should'.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:29:04
works for me
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:29:50
14.8 says there will generally be fees!
Brian King (IPC)
02:29:56
need to see the language
Margie Milam (BC)
02:30:00
What is the proposal?
Marika Konings
02:30:37
The proposal is changing ‘may’ to ‘should’ as displayed on the screen.
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:35:05
As long as the other line is retained and/or referenced here, I think it’s ok
Margie Milam (BC)
02:35:38
+1 Alan G
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:48:58
+1 MarcA
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:49:02
Good suggestion Marc
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:50:34
No concern…good call out
Marika Konings
02:57:04
Also feel free to list your items in the chat
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
02:58:36
SSAC: 27; 37-41
Marika Konings
02:58:52
So basically items 1-41 on this list (for those where there is a proposal): https://docs.google.com/document/d/16BICriVfOPiEeve4A-x6TYKPbgRKqvhX/edit
Andrea Glandon
03:04:05
There will be 4 more min of silence. Chats are being recorded.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:05:47
How will we address items which have neither a question nor a proposal. Example: 16
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
03:05:59
GAC: 1,7,8,10, 13, 14, 16,18, 22-25, 27, 34 37-41
Marika Konings
03:06:34
@Alan - I think groups who have indicated it as a cannot live with items can flag those as well and provide the context that was requested.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
03:08:40
RrSG: 16, 21, 23, 24, 32, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41 (partly)
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
03:09:30
ALAC, 1, 8 and more later.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
03:10:06
NCSG Rec 8
Mark Svancarek (BC)
03:10:32
BC: 1,7,8,10, 11, 23, 24, 27... maybe others
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
03:11:24
RySG: 1,5, 10/11, 21-24, 37-41
Mark Svancarek (BC)
03:11:25
BC: 37
Mark Svancarek (BC)
03:14:34
BC: 1,7,8,10, 11, 23, 24, 27, 34, 37
Franck Journoud (IPC)
03:18:09
IPC: 1, 7, 8, 10-11, 18, 23, 24, 27, 34, 37-41
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
03:19:16
@amr understand and would love to see a proposal that covers your concerns that doesn't remove all the language
James Bladel (RrSG)
03:23:36
Contracted Parties cannot defer their determination of legal risk to ICANN org. Brian and other lawyers understand this.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:24:48
but will never admit it
Mark Svancarek (BC)
03:25:21
@James - I had a similar question about the 5-calendar day issue...
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
03:25:24
+1 James.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:25:42
5 already is the compromis mark
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
03:26:04
that was a question from James, will we get an answer?
James Bladel (RrSG)
03:26:27
I don’t think Brian and Frank can answer here, maybe take the question back to IPC
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
03:27:51
we should respect ICANN‘s role and limitations here.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
03:27:53
because we been there, done that, hadia. never again
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
03:29:16
you cannot force ICANN org to review decisions, but all other aspects. that is why we have eg put the requirement to give rationales in the recommendation
Margie Milam (BC)
03:32:28
Wrongful denials that are unreasonable can be reviewed
Franck Journoud (IPC)
03:32:54
+1 Margie
Margie Milam (BC)
03:33:02
Ie phishing & fraud denials where the request was properly made, proof provided, yet request denied
James Bladel (RrSG)
03:33:18
Thanks all
Alan Woods (RySG)
03:35:00
Unless of course there is PII involved in the decision … which does not need to be disclosed. I think you are not spending enough time in the boots of the controller Margie. It is our job as a controller to protect the data we hold. You continue to think that we are able to run rough shod over that to appease. This is not us being obstinate .. it is is being responsible controllers.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
03:36:18
thank you all and let’s try harder