
35:45
Members, please make sure to select all panelists and attendees for chat option.

36:19
Congrats to them!

36:20
congrats!

36:20
Oh congrats Matthew!!

36:21
Yay Baby Crossman!

36:22
Congratulations!!

36:26
awesome!

36:30
Congrats!!!

36:35
Hooray for some happy news! Congrats to Matt!

36:38
congrats to Matt

36:38
That is wonderful news!

36:40
SLA Update - Matthew has been promoted to “Daddy”

36:41
Congratulations, Matt! Thanks for sharing, Marc.

37:13
good news to lift our spirits at the start

39:26
Marc, your audio is breaking up

40:40
Rec#9-DD Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y_LqTjBFuGYhyocnF03CCDt1JIPiE3iOtw-cm-hH8AI/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs

41:06
Perfect thanks

47:33
+1

48:14
**five minutes of silence will start now for reading**

48:23
Link to PCRTs & DDs: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=126430750

48:31
SILENCE

48:52
And by what facility are we caucusing? This assumes back-channels like Skype or Slack, right?

49:18
I mean, I’ve never heard of a conference call breaking up in to small groups...

50:46
cant zoom do breakout rooms?

53:00
Please enlarge the document font.

53:00
**audio is back**

54:42
Thanks, Caitlin

54:46
frankly I see nothing wrong with devoting some of the call time to these “caucuses”

55:02
it can actually help productivity

55:49
The BC did too

56:02
Hopefully next time everyone will submit comments prior to silent time

56:25
thanks Caitlin

56:43
I am afraid I have another call I am missing, will have to leave

56:49
We hear you well

56:50
You’re coming in loud and clear, Laureen.

58:09
+1 Laureen

58:11
+1 Laureen

58:34
Disagree with Laureen

58:42
I thought we cleared this up on Tuesday? That the number of commenters would not add weight to input?

59:32
@Amr the logic behind the comment is the most important

01:00:10
number of comments can show concern from different stakeholders

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.

01:00:48
My concern with giving weight to the number of comments is that this might encourage astroturfing in public comment periods.

01:01:03
Well…, one of my concerns, at least.

01:01:45
+1 Laureen

01:02:07
@Margie: Aren’t most stakeholders represented on the EPDP Team, which will be taken in to account during consensus calls?

01:03:03
public comments often come from parties that don't participate in specific SGs -- that's where they are helpful

01:03:15
+1 Alan

01:03:42
in fact, cyberattacks often increase over holiday periods when bad guys know that good guys are running on skeleton staff

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.

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

01:04:24
Agree with folks that logic and reasoning behind comments is very important. Sheer numbers should not be dispositive.

01:05:32
@ Matt - RAA 3.18.2 doesn't give you access to registrant contact data

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.

01:06:37
@Laureen: +1

01:06:42
Clarification: Volker and I worked on a separate section. But my concern applies

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?

01:07:39
Matt_ it helps resolve the problem and help identify other domains that may be related to the attack

01:08:06
But if one side gets 101 comments = WINNING

01:08:27
I find the number of comments supporting a given position to be informative, and not necessarily dispositive

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

01:09:23
@Brian: +1

01:09:58
Good points, Alan

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?

01:11:03
When RySG puts their comments in the Google doc, I note that the instructions ask us all to propose suggested changes.

01:11:25
Probably better to do it in writing vs. on the fly on this call

01:11:46
we shall of course try! :)

01:14:13
I’m sorry, what is the relevance of COVID19? Industry and law enforcement are all over this.

01:14:24
+1 James - I'm at a loss

01:15:06
@ James - that's not my experience --

01:15:18
https://rrsg.org/registrar-approaches-to-the-covid19-crisis/

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

01:16:01
just as one example of what I know are MANY efforts by folks in this industry

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

01:16:28
are we talking about the comments yet?

01:16:49
@Milton: Not really.

01:16:56
lets get on with it

01:17:05
@Milton, no, because we were told we can ignore comments if the issue was already discussed.

01:17:23
Agreed - urgent are considered truly urgent - not because the requester subjectively believe their own need to be 'urgent'.

01:17:47
That does appear to be a support of LEA only in certain circumstances.

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?

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

01:18:37
@Milton: +1

01:20:25
+1 Brian

01:20:27
@Milton we just don't want to ignore the comments just because the issue was tackled before

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.

01:20:31
+1 Brian

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.

01:23:19
I’m still not clear what we’re doing

01:23:29
+1 James

01:23:45
@James: +1. Which comment are we reviewing right now?

01:24:03
+1 Milton to not ignore the comments

01:28:11
@MarkSV: We need to have a central decider for priority 1 requests, or in general? Sorry. Just trying to understand.

01:29:01
I need to drop but Theo is filling in for me for the remainder of the call

01:29:59
Amr: For Priority 1, need to have a central decider whether something qualifies and whether evidence is adequate

01:30:10
Thanks, Mark.

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

01:30:34
(what Mark said)

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.

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?

01:31:54
For purpose of this Priority One discussion, please limit my comment to Priority 1 centralization :-)

01:32:25
+1 Alan. That seems to be the main take-away from these comments

01:32:27
Thanks, Mark. That’s helpful.

01:32:42
I'm with you there, AlanW

01:32:53
**5 minutes of silence for reading period starts now**

01:38:05
**We have resumed the meeting**

01:42:52
In the UDRP/URS context, there is no "decision" to disclose.

01:45:58
https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/smernice/guidelines-22019-processing-personal-data-under-article-61b_en

01:46:47
Check paragraphs 27 through 34.

01:47:18
is that existing policy compliant with law, Alan?

01:47:35
Administrative proceedings (SUCH AS response to UDRP or URS, for example) , etc. - that is far broader than URS / UDRP

01:48:20
nope I wasn't …

01:49:39
@Volker, you ALWAYS have the option of not releasing information with a specific due cause.

01:52:28
+1 Brian

01:53:17
+1 Brian lets wait for Bird & Bird answers to the legal committee questions

01:54:35
@Stephanie: +1

01:55:29
@AlanW: +1

01:57:44
**5 minutes of silence for reading period starts now**

01:57:54
i am enjoying these 5 minutes of silence

01:59:26
Are you meditating Milton?

02:02:28
yes, meditating on the holy script of the phase 1 report. it is blissful

02:02:48
**We have resumed the meeting**

02:14:00
SSAC suggested longer-term research could be Priority 3

02:14:42
hahaha

02:16:00
Prio 1 is life or death!

02:16:08
yes

02:16:17
routine fraud requests are not

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?

02:16:55
Berry not if we establish as policy that 90% of all requests are P1

02:18:26
I can volunteer

02:18:30
or any Priority for that matter.

02:20:19
Link to this discussion table, please?

02:20:26
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NSxjQokvWM1lqhSUk-5gTsy7SlWP04S5mdDPLb_9AVo/edit#

02:20:31
Thanks, Berry.

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?

02:27:45
Thanks, Caitlin. You answered my question about timing for homework

02:28:54
Have to drop off thanks all.

02:29:00
in goog form, and in suggestion mode.

02:29:34
Excellent Vanna White work with the mouse, Berry.

02:29:37
dueling comments

02:30:00
Milton it's never stopped you from making our arguments for us previously

02:30:03
:-p

02:30:07
hahahaha

02:30:10
I was on a Doodle poll recently where th esettings were wrong and we all could change each others' preferences

02:30:42
better than Zoom bombing…Doodle anarchy

02:32:04
all good. thx

02:32:25
Thanks all. Bye.

02:32:28
Thank you Rafik and all