Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room
Margie Milam (BC)
20:15
Good morning! -- is there a reason why this call is so early?
caitlin.tubergen
21:52
https://docs.google.com/document/d/174PSGgWB-UTTcqIA-NndIVDkP6WR701tzwjDsozVRXM/edit
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
24:35
+1 to Brian that we need ICANN to tell us if OCTO requires personal data - but I think we did ask them during Phase 1 and were told 'no' they do not? We will see in the 'Dependencies' section.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
25:56
+1 Alan - previous repsonses to quesitons should be included here, maybe under 'required reading'
Brian King (IPC)
26:00
Agreed, Sarah and Alan. That was confusing, because they do process personal data.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
26:24
Brian - they do? That is indeed confusing, we need some clarity now I guess
Alan Woods (RYSG)
26:34
apologies .... clearly i am blind
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
26:35
Thank you Caitlin for pointing those out
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
27:05
So, I see they say "To inform the EPDP Team’s continued discussion on this topic, ICANN Org would like to clarify that ICANN OCTO does not require personal data in domain name registration data for its work. "
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
31:12
ICANN is controller here. It is up to them to develop their own procedures and inform us
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
31:51
correct Caitlin
Alan Woods (RYSG)
33:43
of course!
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
35:04
+1 Thomas
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
36:54
zoom is crashing for me. What OCTO cannot do is process the data and then release it to others who are capable of un-pseudonymizing it
Alan Woods (RYSG)
37:19
+1
Terri Agnew
37:27
@Stephanie, let me know if a dial out on the telephone would be helpful.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
37:48
Thanks Terri, I am in a hotel and fear the charges, so I will limp along.
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
37:50
we promised to discuss, which we now have :-).
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
38:42
it would be good if pseudonyms data or non pd is suffizaabthat could easily be translated into a recommendation
Brian King (IPC)
41:07
+1
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
42:09
+1 Alan.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
45:17
+1 Marc
Margie Milam (BC)
45:25
that's why a briefing is useful - to really probe rather than assume what their response will be
Margie Milam (BC)
46:41
Our job is not to limit the projects ICANN has already agreed to complete -- our job is to see if there is a purpose that allows it and document it as a purpose
Brian King (IPC)
47:37
+1 Margie
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
49:00
I agree with Margie. We need OCTO to clarify this once for all
caitlin.tubergen
49:03
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1meyuNRsq4sMOI6pefJk4jZevaKUsTkVf8_XyW1tRaiA/edit
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
54:13
let us bear in mind that the EWG ignored privacy law for its report.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
56:35
so unfortunately each time it crashes, I lose the chat. I think I was about to say I will give you the privacy advocate’s annotated version of the relevant sections which Alex provides. Guaranteed bedtime reading, slumber is but seconds away once you read this....
Margie Milam (BC)
56:35
Stephanie - that's not true about the EWG
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
57:06
Shorthand Margie. We did not do the work required to implement it.
Alan Woods (RYSG)
58:11
Bravo Sarah! +1
Margie Milam (BC)
58:26
I agree that after the report was published - ICANN did not follow-up to implement it
Alex Deacon (IPC)
58:31
the point of referencing the ewg report was to assist in the assessment of the feasibility we will be doing.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
59:53
a unique ID is personal info. Maybe we need 2 Birds to tell us this because nobody has read the background documents, but this is so well known in the privacy community it makes me cry to spend the money.
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:00:48
+1 Sarah
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:01:41
I understand Alex, and appreciate your efforts in that regard. I just want to point out (Thomas has done it eloquently recently) that technical feasibility is insufficient if the policy framework is not included.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:02:25
Yes, agreed re dependency being the legal input
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:02:38
Approach should be to review the input and go from there?
Brian King (IPC)
01:03:23
Sounds good
Brian King (IPC)
01:03:31
Thanks Sarah.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:04:11
I thought I was agreeing with Caitlin's suggestion for next steps :)
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:04:19
yep! on my list....
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:04:55
Thanks all!
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:05:02
thnaks all
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:05:05
thanks