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

Congrats to them!

congrats!

Oh congrats Matthew!!

Yay Baby Crossman!

Congratulations!!

awesome!

Congrats!!!

Hooray for some happy news! Congrats to Matt!

congrats to Matt

That is wonderful news!

SLA Update - Matthew has been promoted to “Daddy”

Congratulations, Matt! Thanks for sharing, Marc.

good news to lift our spirits at the start

Marc, your audio is breaking up

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

Perfect thanks

+1

**five minutes of silence will start now for reading**

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

SILENCE

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

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

cant zoom do breakout rooms?

Please enlarge the document font.

**audio is back**

Thanks, Caitlin

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

it can actually help productivity

The BC did too

Hopefully next time everyone will submit comments prior to silent time

thanks Caitlin

I am afraid I have another call I am missing, will have to leave

We hear you well

You’re coming in loud and clear, Laureen.

+1 Laureen

+1 Laureen

Disagree with Laureen

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

@Amr the logic behind the comment is the most important

number of comments can show concern from different stakeholders

@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.

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

Well…, one of my concerns, at least.

+1 Laureen

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

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

+1 Alan

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

@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.

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

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

@ Matt - RAA 3.18.2 doesn't give you access to registrant contact data

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.

@Laureen: +1

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

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?

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

But if one side gets 101 comments = WINNING

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

Matt, it’s a good comment. The importance of redacted Whois data in a true urgent emergency is being vastly overstated here

@Brian: +1

Good points, Alan

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?

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

Probably better to do it in writing vs. on the fly on this call

we shall of course try! :)

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

+1 James - I'm at a loss

@ James - that's not my experience --

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

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

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

@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

are we talking about the comments yet?

@Milton: Not really.

lets get on with it

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

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

That does appear to be a support of LEA only in certain circumstances.

@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?

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

@Milton: +1

+1 Brian

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

+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.

+1 Brian

I would add that the corresponding concern is that 24 business hours may be too long a time period to respond to urgent requests.

I’m still not clear what we’re doing

+1 James

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

+1 Milton to not ignore the comments

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

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

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

Thanks, Mark.

@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

(what Mark said)

@Brian: Thanks. Aware that you prefer a central decider in general, but was just seeking clarification for the purpose of this discussion. Thanks again.

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?

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

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

Thanks, Mark. That’s helpful.

I'm with you there, AlanW

**5 minutes of silence for reading period starts now**

**We have resumed the meeting**

In the UDRP/URS context, there is no "decision" to disclose.

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

Check paragraphs 27 through 34.

is that existing policy compliant with law, Alan?

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

nope I wasn't …

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

+1 Brian

+1 Brian lets wait for Bird & Bird answers to the legal committee questions

@Stephanie: +1

@AlanW: +1

**5 minutes of silence for reading period starts now**

i am enjoying these 5 minutes of silence

Are you meditating Milton?

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

**We have resumed the meeting**

SSAC suggested longer-term research could be Priority 3

hahaha

Prio 1 is life or death!

yes

routine fraud requests are not

I think the group should consider the context of safeguards and audits. If P1 gets abused, wouldn't the requestor risk losing their accredidation?

Berry not if we establish as policy that 90% of all requests are P1

I can volunteer

or any Priority for that matter.

Link to this discussion table, please?

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

Thanks, Berry.

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?

Thanks, Caitlin. You answered my question about timing for homework

Have to drop off thanks all.

in goog form, and in suggestion mode.

Excellent Vanna White work with the mouse, Berry.

dueling comments

Milton it's never stopped you from making our arguments for us previously

:-p

hahahaha

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

better than Zoom bombing…Doodle anarchy

all good. thx

Thanks all. Bye.

Thank you Rafik and all