Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2 Team Call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
28:57
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Terri Agnew
29:10
Members: , please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
30:05
who is „Netchoice“?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
30:21
Steve DB?
Andrea Glandon
30:22
@Volker, I just renamed.
Andrea Glandon
30:27
Yes, Steve DelBianco
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
30:39
thx
Berry Cobb
32:16
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dlOhPn5djTVLFBw7TROID0rWKgGIRhrr/edit
Marika Konings
41:37
I believe the footnote was added in response to a public comment which indicated that it was not clear what was intended with ‘automation’.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
44:09
Good point Amr…we (RrSG) had envisioned a simple notification process AND not some sort of waiver process as you note
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
52:53
becaus
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
53:05
because we compromised?
Alan Woods (RySG)
53:24
There is an ENTIRE paragraph below specifically on the disclosure decision.
Marika Konings
53:35
It is the language that was used in the Bird & Bird memo - my understanding is because the disclosure itself may include various processing steps.
Alan Woods (RySG)
53:37
Not even. A paragraph - a section
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
55:01
I note that my comments on resolving the conflict between 16.11 and footnote 3 were not addressed, and that we need clarity that SSAD human review might be required for specific use cases.
Margie Milam (BC)
55:10
That’s not our understanding at all
Margie Milam (BC)
55:14
Very frustrating
Marika Konings
55:29
On the footnote, if there are no objections, we can remove it?
Brian King (IPC)
56:10
Yes please
Marika Konings
56:39
Or the footnote could be clarified that the automated processing of disclosure decisions may involve non-automated review?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
56:46
@Volker: +1
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
56:49
I'm happy to remove it. That still leaves the 2nd related issue.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
59:06
Demonstrates to who?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
59:44
If it’s demonstrates to ICANN, then 16.4 and 16.5 basically conflict with each other.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
59:45
We provided comments on “demonstrates” previously and requested it be changed to “determines”
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:00:09
+1 to determines
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:00:10
That’s fine
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:00:12
Determines works.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:01:34
@James: Good point.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:02:00
ICANN has a vested interest in making sure it’s co-controllers aren’t breaking any laws.
Marika Konings
01:02:07
Note that this process doesn’t foresee any ‘granting’ - per 16.5, following the notification by the CP, automated processing would halt.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:02:33
It seems like that would be common sense, but wasn’t our experience under the previous process. Thanks.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:03:00
maybe we should clarify that a bit?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:03:16
(referring to James B’s comment above)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:05:43
@MarkSV: I’d be interested to hear any elaboration on the technical/financial feasibility bit.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:06:32
The speed of processing is less important so long as processing is halted during consideration (16.5). This was also a problem with the earlier process, where CPs were required to comply with the policy even after notifying ICANN that it was legally impermissible.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:07:18
@MarkSV: Are you suggesting that an entity other than the CP should determine what is technically/financially feasible for it to do?!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:07:31
I’m not sure that I understand what you’re saying.
Brian King (IPC)
01:07:41
@Amr, I'm about to suggest that :-)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:07:49
Yikes!!
Brian King (IPC)
01:08:00
Kind of :-)
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:08:15
“Commercially Feasible”. I always think of the small Registrar that has to build & deploy a system connecting to SSAD, but they only receive 1 request a year
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:08:34
+1 James, that was the illustration we made to Brian the other day
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:09:16
ANd corporate registrars like Mark Monitor and AppDetex will need to build and maintain this, but do they really expect to receive a high volume of requests?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:09:36
@James: Even large registrars may determine that automating disclosures may not be financially feasible. Why should a CP have to dedicate resources to automate, if it doesn’t even receive disclosure requests in a given category of use cases, or even just 1 or 2 a year?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:10:01
@James: I think you just said what I was trying to. :-)
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:10:52
@Amr - for large registrars, the economic incentive for automation is very clear.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:11:46
let‘s not
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:12:09
+1 James. And I would consider how to protect very small Rrs. But if a medium-sized Rr just doesn't want to do it, it seems like a big hole
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:13:54
I am re-reading for Janis' comment
Brian King (IPC)
01:15:36
What are some reasonable guardrails on commercial feasibility?
Brian King (IPC)
01:15:56
Registrars with fewer than 100 domains under management? 100,000?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:16:14
@Brian: Adding commercial/technical feasibility to 16.4?
Margie Milam (BC)
01:16:20
But small registrars can volunarily ask the CSG to automate it under the policy
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:16:20
@James, good explanation.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:16:34
I think there’s something there Brian but not sure we can flush that all out right now
Brian King (IPC)
01:16:48
Registrars with fewer than 20k Port 43 queries per month?
Brian King (IPC)
01:16:55
Thanks, Matt. Maybe implementation?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:17:05
I was going to maybe suggest that…
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:17:40
As a large retail registrar, I’m always surprised when I discuss WHOIS with small or niche registrars. “Yeah, we don’t really get any requests like that.” Same goes for how they process compliance or abuse reports. Some of this stuff just isn’t a factor for very small operators
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:21:15
+1 Brian -- I think 16.3 already limits automation to what's technically and commercially feasible and legally permissible.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:21:18
rec 19 allows CPs to reject them across the board, but what if automation works for some/many CPs, but not all re: tech/commercial feasibility? They’re not the same thing.
Marika Konings
01:22:13
@Amr - isn’t the right to object linked to legal effects produced which were reviewed by B&B in the memo (and no legal effects found for the use cases that are included here)?
Tara Whalen (SSAC)
01:24:02
Sorry folks — need to drop off early for another meeting. Ben will cover for SSAC. Thanks!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:25:13
@Marika: I believe it was covered, but I don’t believe the intent was to deprive data subjects the opportunity to object.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:25:38
@Brian: I appreciate the consideration.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:26:57
so the individual would have to work through their Registrar to raise the “legally permissible” concern Chris?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:27:07
Agree Amr's concern is covered by legally permissible
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:27:09
If it’s already covered, wouldn’t hurt to add it, then? Why does it complicate anything? :-)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:27:53
I don’t get how everyone’s acknowledging the data subject’s right to object, but also opposing the data subject being allowed to practice its right!!
Marika Konings
01:27:56
We are not editing here
Marika Konings
01:28:06
As there are already so many redlines and not to confuse the discussion :-)
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:28:20
ok
Marika Konings
01:29:56
I think there was agreement to change demonstrates to determines
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:29:59
+1
Brian King (IPC)
01:30:49
We don't agree to "determines"
Brian King (IPC)
01:31:04
We need to work on guardrails if we're going in that direction
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:31:14
@ Milton, so the exemption will be at the discretion of the Contracted Party?
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:31:56
Yeah 16.5 addresses my concerns that echo milton.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:33:53
And 16.6 no?
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:34:48
Agreed Matt. No need to reinvent the wheel here methinks.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:36:32
@James: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:37:31
If anything, what James was describing goes against ICANN’s mission to foster competition in the industry.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:38:20
i thought we agreed on determines
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:39:00
There was no agreement
Brian King (IPC)
01:39:10
I think we're getting closer
Marika Konings
01:39:51
I think Janis is proposing that it is ‘determines’ for legal feasibility, and ‘demonstrates’ for commercial and technical feasibility.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:40:00
I thought we agreed on determine for legal, not for tech and commercial
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:40:34
+1 Marika
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:41:34
+1 Brian working the details of the commercial feasibility is surely important
Marika Konings
01:45:39
We can put a placeholder as the drafting may take a little bit of work?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:50:07
Does someone really need it?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:51:21
we will be here formhours. thanks, brian
Margie Milam (BC)
01:51:47
+1 Brian
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:52:23
CPs cannot opt out of using EPP for processing. Why is this different?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:53:08
They can actually @Alan…for some small registrars depending on the TLDs they support they wouldn’t have to implement EPP...
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:54:02
If "when" depends on "how", then we should care about it
Marika Konings
01:54:06
@Matt - how is a decision / determination made in that case? Anything that could be helpful here?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:54:10
@matt agree we need to be flexible lets leave this to implementation
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:54:34
@Volker: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:56:23
@Milton: +1
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:56:40
Milton + 1
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:57:16
I’m not clear what Janis is proposing?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:58:54
+1 James Agree we don't want a closed door
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:59:22
@Matt: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:59:36
LOL.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:01:18
And remember this is NOT opting out of the Policy…it’s opting out of the automation of disclosure…not the responsibility under the policy
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:02:16
@Matt, if the disclosure takes longer than the original decision would have been, there is no benefit of automation.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:02:29
@Alan we are SLA’s, no?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:02:35
it is not yet part of the dns.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:03:01
We would then need an SLA for DISCLOSURE.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:03:27
not another sla
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:03:36
Brian, you want to scrap only 16.4 bis?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:04:10
so it is ok to be left in then, margie
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:04:16
Commercial software isn’t free.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:04:27
At a cost…
Margie Milam (BC)
02:05:02
All software development has some cost elements
Brian King (IPC)
02:05:24
We don't have exceptions based on commercial feasibility for Port 43, RDAP, Transfer Policy. Why here?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:06:25
@James: +1
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:06:58
because those already preexist. this does not, this is new
Brian King (IPC)
02:07:14
@Volker but they were new at one time :-)
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:07:38
We have pointed this out in the past
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:08:39
port 43 existed before icann
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:08:59
Frankly, as Volker pointed out, we have already had this discussion and we need to have the ability to not automate if it is not cost effective
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:09:20
transfer policy is not something one can opt out of as it exsures domain portability
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:10:36
I thought we were talking about automated release of the data, not making the decision. Registrars may automate or not automate the disclosure.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:11:15
I suspect most of the categories of use cases for automation will be edge cases, anyway…, which is why the financial feasibility question is an issue in the first place.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:16:03
"Supporting documentation" that is, what information supports the claim that the automation is no longer legally permissible.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:19:48
+1 Amr on the last comment in chat
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:19:59
And on using common sense here
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:21:13
@Eleeza: Please keep the questions coming, if you have them. No apologies needed for sure!!
Brian King (IPC)
02:21:28
Excellent questions, Eleeza.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:21:37
@ Eleeza -- might these questions be handled during implementation?
Brian King (IPC)
02:23:41
Are we taking a break at the top of the hour?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:23:52
I would argue that “input” allows affected stakeholders to provide a broader range of information, including “supporting documentation”?
Margie Milam (BC)
02:25:32
+1 Brian