Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room
ariel.liang
21:02
This is the list from Caitlin:
Ariel Liang
21:48
1. GNSO-Secs to send invite for Tuesday, 23 July at 14:00 UTC for 75 minutes, and reserve the same time/duration on a bi-weekly basis following the 23 July meeting.
Ariel Liang
21:50
2. With respect to question 1, the Phase 2 LC has noted this question as premature at this time and will mark the question as “on hold”. The question will be revisited once the EPDP Team has identified the purposes for disclosure.
Ariel Liang
21:58
3. With respect to questions 2 and 5, Brian King to consolidate these questions into one question and, where possible, include more detail in the wording. Following receipt of Brian’s draft, evaluate the best time to pose this question to legal counsel.
Ariel Liang
22:06
4. With respect to question 3, the LC notes this question will be put on hold and revisited once the EPDP Team further deliberates the meaning of accreditation.
Ariel Liang
22:45
5. With respect to question 4, the LC is requesting further clarity from the author (ISPCP) re: the meaning and goal of this question.
Ariel Liang
22:52
6. LC Members to continue discussing remaining questions on the list to see if/how questions can be consolidated and prioritized.
Berry Cobb
26:03
Question: 6. Within the context of an SSAD, in addition to determining its own lawful basis for disclosing data, does the requestee (entity that houses the requested data) need to assess the lawful basis of the third party requestor? (Question from ICANN65 from GAC/IPC)
León
29:55
I am now in my computer
León
30:05
Thanks Berry for handling the cue and the room
Berry Cobb
30:18
Great. Over to you Leon to drive.
León
30:24
Thanks
Berry Cobb
31:41
Perhaps the question could be amended to include both options? 1) The requestee performs the evaluation 2) some third party performs the evaluation?
Brian King
33:05
Sounds like Berry's suggestion goes well with Kristina's suggestion
Kristina Rosette (RYSG)
34:36
I think we’re in agreement that, as written, Q6 doesn’t ask what it’s intended to ask.
Kristina Rosette (RYSG)
34:51
yay - consensus
Brian King
35:19
+1 Kristina
Margie Milam
35:29
I agree with Leon's observation - need to build in controllership
Brian King
35:41
Also agree with Leon
Tatiana Tropina
39:26
definitely not, maybe it can be reworded taking into account Kristina’s suggestions (and if you want to build in controllership, I would urge against making assumptions that are ahead of policy making results)
Berry Cobb
40:07
It might be helpful to collaborate with Georgios too, as they(GAC) were also an author of this question?
Berry Cobb
43:32
Would it help this question to provide an almost real world example?
Tatiana Tropina
45:29
Kristina +1, this question calls for at least two hours of clarification :-)
Brian King
46:12
*billable hours Tania :-)
Tatiana Tropina
49:18
Kristina, yes.
Tatiana Tropina
49:30
Brian :-) mine are voluntary! (cry cry)
Tatiana Tropina
50:47
I won’t mind tabling this question even if I am against it at all. As long as it’s not a ticking bomb and we agree that there might be no question at all at the end.
Kristina Rosette (RYSG)
51:04
If the BC thinks that Purpose 2 needs to be revisited, that needs to be done through the full WG - not this sub team.
Tatiana Tropina
51:48
And yes, we have to revisit this in a full WG instead of the shortcuts via legal councel
Margie Milam
51:52
@KRistina- its a legal question that came from the EC letter
Margie Milam
52:06
how Purpose 2 should be read
Margie Milam
52:23
or rewritten to comply with GPDR
Brian King
52:27
I would support parking this pending the Board/GNSO consultations. Let's take another look at this after that.
Kristina Rosette (RYSG)
53:06
@ Margie - present it that way and get the full EPDP to sign off on presenting it as a legal question
Margie Milam
53:52
i think we are doing that with all the questions at the end of our work
Ariel Liang
54:26
Noted
Margie Milam
54:42
yes
Kristina Rosette (RYSG)
54:44
fine
Tatiana Tropina
54:47
okay
Brian King
54:50
ok
Brian King
57:04
I lowered my hand
Berry Cobb
57:05
Question 6. Within the context of an SSAD, in addition to determining its own lawful basis for disclosing data, does the requestee (entity that houses the requested data) need to assess the lawful basis of the third party requestor? (Question from ICANN65 from GAC/IPC)
Brian King
57:05
thanks
Brian King
57:19
I lowered my hand Leon. Thanks
Margie Milam
57:52
yes - i'll fine tune it
Berry Cobb
58:50
6 or 9?
Kristina Rosette (RYSG)
59:30
replace “benefit from” with “require”?
Kristina Rosette (RYSG)
01:00:18
+1 Volker
Margie Milam
01:02:49
yes
Berry Cobb
01:04:59
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105386422
Berry Cobb
01:05:22
Legal advice. 6.1.b was one of the first from B&B.
Berry Cobb
01:05:49
It might be helpful to identify all clarifications of prior memos to consider as a single submission?
Berry Cobb
01:06:41
I'll need to research, but yes I do think these are BC questions.
Brian King
01:09:55
Agree with Dan and Leon. Let's do that soon. It will help B&B to know which questions we see as related.
Brian King
01:10:09
Let's finish the questions first
Daniel Halloran
01:11:15
I agree. Thanks Brian and León
Berry Cobb
01:11:53
If possible, can we try have these closed off by end of week?
Brian King
01:12:40
Yes
Brian King
01:13:15
thanks all