Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
31:11
me too
Andrea Glandon
31:18
Yes, I am letting her know
Volker Greimann
31:18
yuo
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
31:21
Thanks Andrea
Volker Greimann
31:22
yup
Volker Greimann
31:40
Hope it is only her
Andrea Glandon
31:46
Yes, I believe it is her line
Andrea Glandon
32:26
Better now
Volker Greimann
32:31
Can you dial in again? This is a bit of a fill the blanks exercise
zzz - James Bladel
32:45
Hi folks. Please note that I’m an alternate today.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
34:13
Janis hard to hear. Just me?
Brian King (IPC)
34:54
I think just you, Alan G
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
35:06
very distant for me too
Alan Woods (RYSG)
35:11
nope. He is very distant.
Greg Aaron (SSAC)
35:24
215-858-2257 is Greg
Andrea Glandon
35:50
Thank you, Greg
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
36:15
ouch
Beth Bacon (RySG)
38:33
Folks the audio is cutting in and out pretty aggressively.
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
38:38
Is today the berlin meeting day?
Beth Bacon (RySG)
39:06
Yes, Chris. IGF.
Rafik Dammak (GNSO Council Liaison)
39:09
@Chris yes, they even had Angela Merkel and UN Secretary General :)
Mark Svancarek (BC)
40:01
$3M from Donuts,. Everyone else just chips in coins from the couch cushions
milton mueller
40:11
I asked Angela for asylum in Germany and she said Yes
Alan Woods (RySG)
40:35
as long as Microsoft builds the system and maintains it!
milton mueller
40:37
But, she said, first you have to do the ICANN EPDP meeting
Mark Svancarek (BC)
40:50
:-)
Greg Aaron (SSAC)
41:29
unmute my phone please
Andrea Glandon
42:01
Causing feedback, I will unmute when Beth is done speaking.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
42:15
+1 to Alan and Beth, this is very sudden and we have open questions waiting for answers that I thought would provide input to this exact question
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
46:22
This is proposed language from the CPH team
Alan Woods (RySG)
47:03
building block N starts further down …..
Alan Woods (RySG)
48:43
thank you Caitlin! :)
Hadia
50:59
apologies for being late
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
51:11
Whatever is best for the team, sure
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
51:19
This was intended to replace most of what is there already
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
53:45
I thought we can't estimate what to charge users until we understand the cost of creating and maintaining the system?
Brian King (IPC)
54:51
@Sarah I think Margie's referring to upfront integration cost for accreditors/users, as opposed to usage cost
Margie Milam (BC)
55:01
yes- sorry I wasn't clear
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
55:27
Thanks for clarifying
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
57:09
I thought we had decided that there would be only one accrediting party, ICANN
Margie Milam (BC)
57:10
yes - Alan G - I was referring to that development
Margie Milam (BC)
57:29
ICANN accredits accreditors
Margie Milam (BC)
57:41
so ICANN would accredit WIPO as an example
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
57:50
I thought we said ICANN was the accreditation provider??
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
58:10
No, there will not be accreditation of accreditors
Mark Svancarek (BC)
58:22
I think we must try to develop principles now since that is all we can determine right now
Mark Svancarek (BC)
58:34
principals
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
58:50
+1 Alan it is very difficult to determine in detail the financial aspects of an unknown system
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
59:56
I thought there is a web interface?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:00:01
Yes, +1 Beth!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:00:04
we could just put general principals if everyone agrees
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:00:28
Why don’t we start with CPs sharing their current volume of requests and make a projection as well as the other groups on this team.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:00:53
+1 Thomas
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:00:56
The CPH proposal takes us to principles instead of specifics, may be helpful.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:00:59
I don’t think we are looking for number now, just agreement how that number will be paid for
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:01:07
There will for sure be a substantial difference in projected figures, but maybe we can then settle on a middle ground so we have at least the same fact base.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:01:23
I think that current volumes will not be indicative of a future centralized system
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:01:32
So isn't this estimate exactly what we asked ICANN Org for?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:01:42
possibly not, but it's a better starting point than nothing
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:01:51
We need to get aligned on the order of magnitude. Policies will potentially be adjusted based on that.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:02:12
+1 Sarah
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:02:17
Maybe even split between private requestors’ requests and LEA requests.
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:02:29
+1 Sarah
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:02:31
I agree with Sarah, but the question is whether we can or should wait for that.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:04:12
+1 Thomas ..... is this, not wanting to open pandora's box, a question of what goes into the initial report or not and whether it will be ready in time or not??
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:05:10
Sounds good Janis, thank you.
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:06:39
If we are anticipating simply a distribution point (because we can’t yet determine who the decision maker is) should we not then try to be conservative in our approach as a simple system could likely scale to accomm
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:06:46
Date more requests
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:07:00
+1 Beth
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:07:08
+1
Greg Aaron (SSAC)
01:09:58
The central system should be able totell if a data element is missing, and return an error code.
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
01:10:10
+1 mark
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:11:32
Agree with Greg that many/most syntactical errors will algorithmically bounce back to requestor before ever getting to the decider.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:11:32
assuming greg that you are talking about missing fields … not a change of fundamental details to do with reasoning?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:12:11
+1 Alan
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:12:11
I still think that if a request is not properly formatted, it needs to be fixed and resubmitted
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:12:18
There may well be web interface, but at the policy level, we need to allow for an API interface as well.
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:12:45
Having an incomplete requ
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:13:01
st is not in line with the requirements of Rec 18 in Phase !
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:13:17
Sorry I keep hitting ‘return’ mid comment!
Brian King (IPC)
01:13:29
Thank you, Caitlin! Super helpful
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:15:59
Someone who contiinually submits mal-formed requests is abusing the system and should be dealt with that way.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:17:08
agreed
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:17:28
should it be 'amend OR resubmit' ? because we don't know exactly how the system will work yet
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:17:33
and/or ?
Brian King (IPC)
01:17:41
Only if Mark's amendment does not equal a new request
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:17:42
+1 Alan. Also an amended request (not an non-accepted, incomplete request) should be considered in a balancing test …..
Brian King (IPC)
01:17:45
for cost purposes
Brian King (IPC)
01:17:58
really like Sarah's suggestion
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:19:17
So this is assuming an automated system
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:19:22
which is probably okay?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:20:10
This is a good point, Beth
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:22:12
Brian that is helpful. We should be more clear about that in the text please.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:22:44
If it is an incomplete request is submitted it certainly does not pass to the decision maker
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:22:58
such faith in automation
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:23:22
The decision maker only looks into full and complete requests
Brian King (IPC)
01:23:34
If we replace "the entity receiving the access/disclosure request" with "the SSAD", that should do the trick.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:23:58
Yes, once the SSAD passes the singularity we can refer to it that way
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:24:13
My take on this would be: Where the requestor fails to fill in all fields or where the examiner requests additional information, a supplemental fee can be charged at the discretion of the examiner.
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:24:38
Sure Brian that makes sense
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:24:44
You can still fill a box with nonsense ……. and claim that it's an incomplete request … and unless Skynet has gone live, AI will not be making those calls. Empty box - system will not allow it.But if you want to Amend what you put into the box, unless you are rectifying a clear error (could be one of the denied options - denial but opportunity to amend)
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:24:50
@Milton the entity receiving the request will make sure requests are complete whether through automation or through other means
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:24:50
exactly what Greg is saying... lol
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
01:25:03
We want to ensure that the requestors provide all information at hand upfront and not try salami tactics with examiners.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:25:17
In the event that the access/disclosure request is deemed to be incomplete, the requesting party will be given an opportunity to amend. . .
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:25:23
+1 Greg
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:26:12
@Greg but this will only happen during the determination phase
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:27:35
In the event that the access/disclosure request is deemed to be misinformed, incomplete, and or requires additional information, the requesting party will be given an opportunity to amend and resubmit its request.
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:28:05
Mal-formed not misinformed …
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:29:06
I continue to think that most of the disconnects on this text is that we are all operating with different visions of what this system looks like and how parties interact with it.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:29:13
+100 Beth
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:29:30
There are still many unknowns that have real significant effects on our decisions
Brian King (IPC)
01:30:07
True dat Beth + Sarah
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:33:06
Change it to business days and it is still a tough timeline to beat
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:33:11
This is specifically for not automated responses, Margie
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:33:24
‘When we get to it’ is still the best I can offer
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:33:39
This is specific to requests that cannot be responded to automatically
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:34:06
We truly need to be realistic here, as our risks are very real
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:34:23
I cannot imagine that we as controllers of the data will have nothing to do with this
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:34:28
if nothing else, the data must be provided to the SSAD
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:34:31
so there is involvement
Margie Milam (BC)
01:35:35
@sarah - if its an RDAP reply - this timeline can be met
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:36:23
We had recommendation 18 because there was no system for disclosure in place. The new system should have its own elements and parameters
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:36:34
So I get the hope.... but if we are still can't decide between 3 different models, then the placeholder for the building blocks should be threefold
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:37:13
…should endeavour to be returned within [timelines to be determined]…
Brian King (IPC)
01:37:16
If all we're asking CPs to do is respond to an RDAP query, the current SLA in the Registry Agreement is ≤ 2000 milliseconds, for at least 95% of the queries
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:37:45
Brian we can't expect that SLA to apply for non-automated disclosure decisions
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:38:00
Placeholders should not look like maximum demands
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:38:02
Good question, Beth
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:38:34
Brian: those were automated. This is about non-automated respomses
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:39:16
So the RDAP SLAs cannot even remotely be compared
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:40:51
Tough timelines make for sloppy reviews
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:41:29
@Milton, remember that Alan W had reported that he at the time of his report, he had never had to do a balancing test.
Brian King (IPC)
01:41:30
Do CPs care what the SSAD SLAs are, if the CPs are only required to respond to an RDAP query?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:41:40
Yes
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:41:49
@Milton we hope the CPs won't need to make the decision. As for the old WHOIS it is dead and not coming back
Brian King (IPC)
01:41:53
@Sarah, I suppose that's what I don't understand.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:41:58
They are responding to a disclosure request that must be conformant to data protection law, not an "RDAP request"
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:42:08
@Sarah, I also don't understand
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:42:13
European laws are full of relative definitions like that. And we have not devolved to chaos yet
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:43:48
The second half of Brian's question, " if the CPs are only required to respond to an RDAP query", is a big assumption that I don't think we can make yet, and thus we do need to care about these response times
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:44:48
is that what the legal advices says is the actual reality of the situation is Brian.
Brian King (IPC)
01:45:52
@Alan yes, of one particular set of facts.
Brian King (IPC)
01:46:30
ICANN has proposed a different set of facts to the DPAs for opinion
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:48:00
Yes Mark, but we must always base our estimations on the weakest link
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:48:02
........ so let's wait until we get the answer so Brian . Absolutely agree! Wonderful plan. no need to 'lock it in' if we are pending that answer so
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:48:38
+1 Alan
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:48:40
+1 Beth
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:50:34
@Beth currently there is one particular idea that we all hope it works
Brian King (IPC)
01:50:36
@Alan sure thing, and let's do all we can in the meantime (not necessarily "wait" IMO).
Brian King (IPC)
01:51:10
@Beth sure let's try to work that up and chew on it. What does that look like?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:51:20
With both "should" and "preferably" I think it'd be OK, but would need to discuss with my SG.
Brian King (IPC)
01:51:59
Ok with "should"
Brian King (IPC)
01:52:11
not sure what "preferably" does for us
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:52:33
OK so not presupposing the response you are waiting for is probably considered the 'right' thing so.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:52:49
I assumed we're using those IETF-defined terms, yes?
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:54:00
@Brian, appreciate that! I think some of the CPH comments tried to move in that direction. Towards language that is flexible and more neutrally describes what a system would look like.
Brian King (IPC)
01:54:29
@Beth I'll look for that language
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:54:53
Could we adopt the language for this that we use in Rec 18 from phase 1?
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:55:03
Why recreate the wheel?
Margie Milam (BC)
01:56:02
Rec. 18 was meant for the manual requests - not the SSAD
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:56:27
I wish, MakSV, I wish
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:56:32
MarkSV
Margie Milam (BC)
01:56:35
could we ask ICANN compliance if they would enforce that language?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:56:59
:-)
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:57:51
I have no problem with specific timeframes for urgent requests provided they are limited as to who can make them and spelled out in business days
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:58:16
Lost Janis sound?
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
01:58:20
lost audio
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:58:20
Did Janis drop?
Terri Agnew
01:58:23
we are checking into this
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:58:34
Yes, thanks
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:58:35
ye
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:58:36
yes
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:58:43
yes and much clearer now
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:58:55
I am worried about "business days", as opposed to "calendar days", which again feels like a compromise to enable the most-poorly staffed entities to provide worse SLAs
Brian King (IPC)
01:59:25
stay on whatever audio you're on, Janis! Agree with Alan W that you're clearer now
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:59:28
we lost you again
Becky Burr (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:59:47
the problem is that there are 7 of us in a room with a polycom
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:00:01
Re: business days, if the request comes on a Friday or holiday, then 1 day could become 3. That would undermine the rapid response that is the goal.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:00:14
It is the same SLA, just different timeframes
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:01:13
So *everyone* is allowed to provide SLAs crafted to support the most poorly staffed entities
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:01:44
No, since not everyone is so poorly staffed as to have less business days in the week
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:01:57
Business days btw also is a legal term
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:02:09
It just means no week-ends, no holidays
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:02:19
+1 Volker
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:02:50
So the SLA only differs by what and how many public/bsank holidays there are in any given country/state
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:02:55
Yes, we all understand the difference between Bdays and Cdays and that is why I object
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:03:25
So why the argument with the poorly staffed entities if that does not matter to the definition of business days?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:04:25
I want calendar days. As you say, business days varies everywhere - less predictable. It's not as if cybercrimes happen less frequently on weekends or bank holidays
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:05:03
And yes, business days means that it could become Wednesday if you send you request on the Friday before the winter holidays if the 25.th falls on a Monday
Brian King (IPC)
02:05:34
I think that's fair, Beth.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:05:36
+1 for that for me.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:05:54
was that not the notion before?
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:06:23
Are you willing to come into the office on Dec 24-26 just in case law enforcement will send a request, Mark? I am not
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:06:42
I am not even willing to guarantee I will stay somewhere where I have internet connectivityt
Brian King (IPC)
02:06:47
Thanks for reasonableness and understanding, y'all.
Margie Milam (BC)
02:06:50
thanks!
Brian King (IPC)
02:06:53
Progress!
Brian King (IPC)
02:09:55
@Eleeza I was hoping to get rid of that ambiguity too :-)
Eleeza Agopian (ICANN Org Liaison)
02:10:23
:)
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:12:30
I'm not clear how reporting numbers of request vs denied would identify improper denials
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:12:30
Logging is fine
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:12:42
Wouldn't that be a situation where the requestor would follow the dispute process to address it?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:13:19
Uh, not quite
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:13:24
that is an abuse point of contact
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:13:29
it's not the same as a disclosure decision
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:13:39
+1 Sarah
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:13:55
And the abuse contact is not necessarily able to make that decision, it's a very different work function
Margie Milam (BC)
02:13:55
great point Alan!
Margie Milam (BC)
02:14:00
Alan G
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:14:15
well I hardly thought you agreed with me Margie
Margie Milam (BC)
02:14:28
:)
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:14:38
@Sarah, I didn't say it was identical, just noting its existance and there is some correspondance.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:14:59
For the record, RAA 3.18.2
Brian King (IPC)
02:15:54
Totally get it, Beth.
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:16:34
Thanks, Brian. Just trying to make sure we are have a shared understanding so we can get where we need to go.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:17:57
Rec 18 does include logging requirements ??
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:18:06
Logs of Requests, Acknowledgements and Responses should be maintained in accordance with standard business recordation practices so that they are available to be produced as needed including, but not limited to, for audit purposes by ICANN Compliance;
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:18:11
THat is from the "timeline' part of rec 18
Brian King (IPC)
02:18:21
Thanks, Sarah.
Brian King (IPC)
02:18:25
It's there in 18
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:18:40
Sarah save us all
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:18:47
I see it in 18
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
02:18:56
Logging is fine
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:18:59
Ahhh, thanks, Caitlin!
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:19:09
agree with deleting d from here
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:19:25
agree deleting d
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:20:03
Yes, that's a big question
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:20:08
(who the Controller is)
Brian King (IPC)
02:21:11
Ok
Margie Milam (BC)
02:21:12
that's ok
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:21:16
I am Ok with that deletion
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:21:31
+1.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:21:52
sorry! :D
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:24:04
Yup C, not B. :)
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:25:03
Chris, could F become the definition in the footnote to C?
Brian King (IPC)
02:25:21
yeah (I'm not Chris, but I think so)
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:25:53
think so…. (@beth)
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:26:28
need to lose the of
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:26:36
As long as Chris is happy with that I’m pretty happy too
Margie Milam (BC)
02:27:14
+1 Brian
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:27:29
+1 Brian
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:28:43
Just noting that the language is slightly different. I want to make sure we capture it if it’s different but if it’s the same maybe we consolidate?
Brian King (IPC)
02:30:30
agree with Beth that it's also important to consider whether the "unless exceptional circumstances" applies here too (I think it probably shouldn't)
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:31:11
Ok that is really helpful. Thank you, Caitlin!
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:31:31
@Brian I'm not convinced that you have an urgent in the same sense as Public authorities. You say you have provided good reasoning. Could you point that out again. I do need to point out that we should NOT be treating private entities in the same manner we deal with those who retain an actual legal authority. If you could provide that clarity for the record.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:31:31
Thanks, all
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:31:49
I think whatever Chris needs on this to feel it is clear. I just think it’s important that we are clear or it will be confusing to everyone else! :)
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:31:59
agreed beth
Rafik Dammak (GNSO Council Liaison)
02:32:52
Thanks all
Rafik Dammak (GNSO Council Liaison)
02:33:04
it is never good to be the turkey during this week :)
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:33:15
looking forward to it
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:34:44
Sorry, is the draft just coming to the team on Thursday?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:34:44
thank you bye
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:34:52
Happy thanksgiving everyone!
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:34:53
And not to public comment until Dec?
Fiona Asonga (ISPCP)
02:34:59
thanks bye
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:35:02
Thanks all