Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Tara Whalen
22:37
Hello. I need to leave after 90 min today.
Terri Agnew
23:25
@Tara, noted
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
24:45
Hi all!
caitlin.tubergen
24:49
Yes, one moment
Margie Milam
26:17
Yes- I agree given where we landed
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
26:22
Same
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
26:23
Agreed
Terri Agnew
27:31
Legal memos / input wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/thFIBg
Margie Milam
28:29
Agree its still relevant
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
34:54
I need to drop after 60 minutes, by the way.
Terri Agnew
35:01
@Brian, noted
Becky Burr
35:11
Noted brian
Milton Mueller
36:37
sure i can wait
Milton Mueller
39:45
so Margie are you contending that the EPDP is also redoing accuracny policy?
Margie Milam
40:50
It's in our scope and was pushed to Phase 2 in our Phase 1 report
Milton Mueller
41:45
disagree on the scope question.
Milton Mueller
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
Margie Milam
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.
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
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.
Milton Mueller
54:04
Agree with Matt
Becky Burr
55:07
Is that what the hybrid model contemplates - that automated decisions would be centralized?
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
55:15
Yes
Milton Mueller
57:08
No, Becky, the hybrid model contempolates disclosure decisions made by CP's
Margie Milam
59:43
Yes - we have 2 examples - LEA and UDRP/URS providers- in the Initial Report
Hadia Elminiawi
01:02:26
Yes we have two centralized automated use cases
Hadia Elminiawi
01:03:18
The CP is releasing the data but ICANN is making the decision
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:03:50
Well, what about the option of them disclosing as joint controllers :-)
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:03:59
It‘s the broken record again, sorry!
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:04:12
Exactly!
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
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
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
01:06:11
Thank you, Becky.
Matthew Crossman (RySG)
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
Margie Milam
01:09:15
+1 Laureen
Hadia Elminiawi
01:10:31
+ 1 Becky
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
01:10:35
+1
Tara Whalen
01:11:30
Great, thanks!
Hadia Elminiawi
01:11:43
Thank you Becky for redrafting the questions
Terri Agnew
01:12:26
Phase 2 Legal Memos wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/SKijBg
caitlin.tubergen
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
caitlin.tubergen
01:15:00
Text from the Annex: Important Issues for Further Community Action
Hadia Elminiawi
01:15:10
I am not sure that based on the answer we got we could make a recommendation in this regard
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
01:20:49
I need to drop now
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
01:20:51
Thanks, all.
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
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).
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
01:21:43
Goodbye
Margie Milam
01:25:27
+1
Tara Whalen
01:27:45
Thanks for confirming SSAC legal/natural question is going forward.
Hadia Elminiawi
01:28:06
Bye all
Hadia Elminiawi
01:28:07
thanks