Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room
Ayden Férdeline (NCSG)
39:04
hello all
Berry Cobb
41:24
https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/EPDP+Travel+Support+-+Phase+2
Berry Cobb
41:29
Supported travellers
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
43:01
FCM typically responds within a business day, so if you haven't heard, contact travel support.
Greg Aaron (SSAC)
43:56
HI, Berry. Put in my LA F2F request to Travel Support a few weeks ago, but have not been given any reservation -- so don't know if I have a flight.
Marika Konings
44:10
See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CXKIZmjBRUO3qRIiNl78S0692EIHDCum/edit
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
44:16
Thanks Marika
Ayden Férdeline (NCSG)
44:42
I received my flight confirmation for LA some time back, within 1 day of requesting it. I suggest following up with constituency travel. They have a new email address - travelsupport@icann.org
Brian King (IPC)
45:04
...and someone is about to get the policy-nerdiest voicemail ever recorded :-)
Berry Cobb
46:01
@Greg - thanks we'll follow up behind the scenes. It might also be good to contact travel support as well, as Ayden suggests. Thank you. And thanks Ayden.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
46:20
Thanks Mark SV for colour-coding your input, makes it easier to read!
Brian King (IPC)
47:19
Thanks to staff for adding the reformatted IPC input so quickly. Much appreciated.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
51:45
Hopefully the color scheme is distinguishable by color-blind people
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
52:38
@MarkSV I thought about that too! I suspect the colours would not be useful/accessible, but the content itself remains available and is probably sufficient.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
55:59
I have to agree with Margie here…I think we need to find the time to discuss these issues rather than writing in comments
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
56:53
Right, couldn't we use the 45 min. allotted to this topic to go through the comments here and now?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
57:00
We must review input. but we do not need to review as a separate step.
Brian King (IPC)
57:29
I bet Staff can ascertain the similarities and differences in positions pretty well based on initial input
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
57:41
Mabe this is a quesiton ofthe purpose of thearly input. Is it something that we need to come to consensus on?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
57:45
+1 Brian
Margie Milam (BC)
58:40
+1 King
Ayden Férdeline (NCSG)
59:14
+1 Amr
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
59:46
+1 Amr
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:00:32
We can all just review it independently. Each one of these issues will come up during the course of our work, but with a more solid objective in mind.
Marika Konings
01:02:20
Some of the input has focused on additional questions that should be answered in relation to each of the charter questions.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:04:28
These can be captured, and the entire content of the early input will likely re-emerge when we are trying to nail down preliminary recommendations.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:04:29
But I thought point of having early input was to provide a basis for our discussions and then it evolves! It’s called “early” input after all. We can’t keep discussing them until late
Margie Milam (BC)
01:04:31
We need the legal questions answered - totally agree
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:04:36
1000% agree with Alan
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:04:45
Same here. +1 Alan W.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:04:50
+1 AlanW
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:04:51
Good idea ALan W
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:04:58
Are we planning on having legal feedback by the time we get to LA?
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:05:07
And will Ruth be attending LA?
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:05:32
Thank you ... I think the legal opinions will be like a map through the rocky waters of the early input
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:06:14
@Matt: “And will Ruth be attending LA?” - good question.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:06:21
Answer?
Berry Cobb
01:06:55
@All - Bird & Bird will not planned to be present at our F2Fs.
Marika Konings
01:07:21
First step will be for the legal committee to agree on questions to be submitted. The sooner that happens, the sooner there will be responses :-)
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:07:24
with 50 K for legal fee. Of course they won’t be around…
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:07:34
That’s unfortunate. Would have been helpful to have her there.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:07:43
Do we know when the legal committee expects to agree on the questions?
Berry Cobb
01:08:35
@Farzaneh - the group will have more budget than $50K. Per Tuesday's session, once the Council accepts our work plan, we will be working on a request to the Board for full set of resources for Phase 2 efforts.
Berry Cobb
01:10:30
Even still, having B&B on-site given the large expense is likely not an option. My understanding Toronto was not a small expense.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:10:38
Thanks Berry. I meant for the upcoming meeting but your clarification is very helpful
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:11:36
Is the red text in the (b) answer menaingful ?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:11:44
Thanks, Brian.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:12:46
OK thank you :) Yup some of it is red, I thought that coudl be the case
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:16:07
But the Requestor isn’t a party to that contract (registration agreement)
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:18:04
@Marika if you double-click on the space between the two pages it collapses the space and makes it easier to view more of the doc on screen
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:18:21
:) Thanks
Marika Konings
01:18:25
Thanks, Sarah!
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:19:34
can complaints in h) only be directed to the disclosing entity? or could they also be directed to a DPA?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:22:01
+1 Alan W
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:23:09
ha not directed at you .. just want to keep us on track! thank you Brian! :)
Brian King (IPC)
01:23:49
:-)
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:25:21
the fact that the UDRP has not been drafted with proviacy in mind - is kind of a root problem though!
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:25:26
*privacy
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:26:12
Identification of the registrant? You need contactability as far as I know you don’t need to identify them
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:27:12
@Brian: Yes…, agree. And since determining “who you are” has changed significantly due to legal obligations, the procedure, including what is submitted in a complaint needs to be reassessed. No argument on the purpose of the procedure in terms of identifying and pursuing bad faith registrations.
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:28:59
the viability of UDRP is not the EPDP Phase II's remit
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:29:02
Thats the RPM
Berry Cobb
01:29:06
As a reminder from Tuesday's session. The work plan and action items, including the use case calendar are now on Goog Sheets. You will be able to see open/assigned action owned by a person or group as well as readings of use cases leading up to LAX so that the team can review these ahead of our meetings. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/179ocCF6XHK48CJaFF4Rdg9T3atQKFeY51zwF6rfQ4Jw/edit#gid=126973602
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:29:07
PDP
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:29:18
@Alan: +1 on the UDRP/remit of this group.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:29:57
We look forward to providing comments in the doc, thank you.
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:30:50
points at email i sent today
Hadia Elminiawi(ALAC)
01:31:25
+ 1 Mark
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:31:32
Yeah consider safeguards for the registrant data though. Not for the “users” of the data
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:31:53
@Mark: The use case is not the final objective. The process to disclose data legally is. Alan W sent a specific proposal on how this should be done.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:32:36
Brian mentioned that an updated version of this doc will be provided, are we going to have that before we have to submit comments by EOD Tomorrow?
Brian King (IPC)
01:36:41
@Sarah I'm happy to send that around shortly after this call
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:37:06
Thanks Brian. I do of course want to review the same doc eveyrone else is leaving comments on, so hopefully Staff will share the right thing.
Marika Konings
01:38:12
As a reminder, phase 1 legal memos can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/thFIBg
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:38:59
“Getting the data before you file” precludes 6.1.b as a legal basis, doesn’t it? Registration agreements don’t include any provision on this, if I recall correctly.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:39:36
No- because the registrant agrees that the domain name is subject to the UDRP
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:39:39
@Alan W: +1
Margie Milam (BC)
01:39:42
its in the registration agreement
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:39:50
Thanks, Marika. Margie - which bit of the Bird & Bird memos refers to the contractual basis for disclosure to IP requests?
Margie Milam (BC)
01:40:03
The one on 61b
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:40:05
@Margie: Yes, my understanding as well. So a UDRP has to be filed in order for that to kick in.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:40:29
no-- that's not required
Marika Konings
01:40:30
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138857/6%281%29%28b%29%20Memo.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1548874809000&api=v2
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:40:39
@Margie: Explain?
Marika Konings
01:40:40
This is the link to the 6(1)(b) memo
Margie Milam (BC)
01:41:32
its perfectly appropriate to ask for the data in anticipation of filing a UDRP; it is a due process issue and in fact protects the registrant from losing their domain name improperly
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:42:30
The B&B memo seems specific to DNS abuse or breach of the Registration Agreement, but I’ll take a closer look
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:42:34
My point is that registrants don’t agree in their agreements with their chosen registrars on being subject to whatever processing is required in anticipation of filing a UDRP, or not.
Alan Woods (RYSG)
01:42:47
can I also point out that 6(1)b is fine for the data relating to that contract - not to other contracts
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:42:54
They only agree to be subject to UDRPs, when they are filed.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:43:51
@Milton: +1
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:45:02
@Milton: +1 again.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:45:28
the problem with Milton's approach is that you have to pay the filing fees before disclosrure and you would have to pay the attorney to write the complaint
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:45:43
Well…, not a 6.1.f case in the event that the UDRP has been filed, and data needs to be disclosed to UDRP providers. That would be 6.1.b, but only that.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:45:44
yo don't have to, no
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:46:41
@Margie: That’s why I said that the procedure’s design presumes that data protection laws don’t exist. The policy/procedure itself needs to be reviewed, which I believe we recommended in phase 1.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:47:03
I think a TM holder could file a disclosure request, based on apparent infringement, get the contact data, then file the UDPR case (or not) based on that info
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:47:49
No need to pay a lawyer to file a UDRP beforehand
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:48:17
@Margie - but the fees are a component of UDRP today, and can be fixed via policy. For example, one outcome of this PDP could be to create a precursor process that tests legitimate rights and discloses before a UDRP/URS is initiated.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:48:33
+1 James.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:48:45
Sorry, a “free” precursor process that sits in front of UDRP/URS
Margie Milam (BC)
01:49:45
I have got to drop to drive - but will stay on the phone
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:50:05
Alan, thank you for clarifying
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:50:50
Did I hear somebody say that comments on this use case will be due tomorrow?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:51:17
Sarah voluntold you to submit by tomorrow
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:51:19
I would think Monday at a minimum.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:51:41
I thought we're required to provide comemnts by the friday following the first reading, but more time would be great.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:51:48
maybe Marika can clarify our overall expectations re timing
Marika Konings
01:51:53
@Amr - correct, per the use case calendar by 16 August, Members to submit edit/view/proposals for IP 5 in writing
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:52:55
Can this be postponed until Monday? Will be very difficult to get this done by tomorrow. Saying that selfishly due to local holidays.
Marika Konings
01:52:57
But there may be a need to slightly adjust that as Brian indicated that he would share an updated version later today which may require a bit more time for groups to review?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:53:16
Woohoooo to Brian’s updated version, then!! :-)
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:55:42
SO our use case review schedule from Aug 6 does say that comments on IP5 are due by EOD tomorrow. Thanks Marika
Hadia Elminiawi(ALAC)
01:56:11
@Amr true we had a week for "Eid" holidays
Hadia Elminiawi(ALAC)
01:56:31
Thanks Brian
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:57:03
@Hadia: Right. Had to take a holiday from my holiday to prep for and attend this call. Hope you’re enjoying your Eid holiday. :-)
Brian King (IPC)
01:57:16
Apologies to staff for the multiple versions, and thanks to all for review and comments
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:57:37
lets party
Brian King (IPC)
01:57:48
+1 Milton
Brian King (IPC)
01:58:02
(how rarely I get to say that) :-)
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:58:04
<balloons emoji>
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:58:28
Are we allowed to resort to violence?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:58:45
lol Julf
Brian King (IPC)
01:58:46
Big support for using a Zero Draft for F2F
Brian King (IPC)
01:58:59
and thanks in advance to staff for what I'm sure will be quite a lift
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:59:01
@Brian @Mark: :-)
Mark Svancarek (BC)
01:59:43
That is your new nickname: Julf "Can we resort to violence" Helsingius
Brian King (IPC)
02:00:12
I'm going to need to drop off in a moment. Thanks all
Hadia Elminiawi(ALAC)
02:00:59
I also support a zero draft document for the LA meeting
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:01:20
Zero draft document based on what materials?
Marika Konings
02:02:07
Based on review of use cases, early input and EPDP Team deliberations
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:02:16
Can those high-level principles be accompanied by draft processes to disclose data, which reflect them? That would be really helpful.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:02:36
reflect them = reflect the principles.
Marika Konings
02:02:55
IP5 updated use case is uploaded to google docs for your review and input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZMK6pw7i3oQ6I26n07kQv7tfsr8zKdBc/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
02:03:47
Thanks Marika
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:04:19
we did not agree on anything. Unfortunately nothing came out. All these cases have 6(1)(f) as their legal basis - contentious no agreement. our list of safeguards is not sufficient. And no one has done legitimate interest assessment test here. Which is crucial for disclosure but the more we said it the more people said we shouldn’t go to specifics ...
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:05:29
@Janis: Thanks. That’s very helpful and reassuring. Once we have that zero draft, we might be able to work in earnest towards eventual policy recommendations.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:06:16
I don’t think we can have a zero draft at this stage. We haven’t resolved any issue …
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:06:30
Ben?
Marika Konings
02:06:30
@Farzaneh - the zero draft is not intended to represent agreements, but to provide a starting point to get to agreements.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:07:11
So it is not a zero draft it is the compilation of all the arguments for and against about all the issues and questions raised in our charter.
Marika Konings
02:08:13
No, not necessarily, the aim is to outline principles and building blocks that may be acceptable to all, or at least form a starting point to get to a form that is acceptable to all, based on discussions to date.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:09:42
I really don’t think you can draw any principles that maybe acceptable to all based on our discussions. I suggest including all principles /contentious issues so that we can go over them and sort them out
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:11:06
Thanks.
Hadia Elminiawi(ALAC)
02:11:08
Thank you all
Ayden Férdeline (NCSG)
02:11:10
Thanks all
Alex Deacon (IPC)
02:11:11
thanks all
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:11:17
cheers
Fiona Asonga (ISPCP)
02:11:17
Thanks and bye
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:11:18
Thanks everybody