Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Andrea Glandon
30:36
Thank you, Kristina! I was thinking that was you.
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
34:02
Hi all, sorry for being late.
Caitlin Tubergen
34:23
Hi All, We will first review this worksheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1izpX2C-RrfAdRgRDwBO9tQuJIBA9Xt38p1MTJgQNDGI/edit
Alex Deacon (IPC)
37:51
Should we be nit picking final report language?
matt serlin (RrSG)
38:02
No @Alex IMO
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
38:11
+1 Marc I also don't see the interplay
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
40:26
Final Report says the following, after the Rec 14 text:Note, PPSAI is an approved policy that is currently going through implementation. It will be important to understand the interplay between the display of information of affiliated vs. accredited privacy / proxy providers. Based on feedback received on this topic from the PPSAI IRT, the EPDP Team may consider this further in phase 2.
Brian King (IPC)
40:50
Thanks for bailing us out, Sarah
Alex Deacon (IPC)
43:29
thanks.
Alex Deacon (IPC)
44:23
Thanks - I missed the “or”.
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
45:02
support Sarah's point.
Margie Milam (BC)
45:10
+must
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
45:11
+ 1 must
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
45:17
I actually prefer MAY
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
45:23
we should keep it may/must
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
45:28
Agree that may/must
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
45:35
I think the decisiion between those two would be part of what the recommendation would include
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
45:44
(IF the decision is to go with the recommenmdation option)
Brian King (IPC)
45:57
Sure
Brian King (IPC)
46:05
(may/must)
Brian King (IPC)
46:14
we'll ultimately need to arrive at "must"
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
46:34
Brian let's not get too far ahead of ourselves :)
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
46:46
mine too, margie
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
46:52
agree with Margie yes...
Margie Milam (BC)
46:54
ok
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
46:55
That was my understanding, we're not actually answering these quesitons today
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
47:02
we're figuring out what our plan is
Margie Milam (BC)
47:34
old hand
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
47:49
I think we'd need to return to that as we work through the rest of the process for this issue
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
50:23
Good Q Margie…seems very unclear how our group and the PPSAI IRT are going to intersect
Marc Anderson (Verisign) (RySG)
52:16
agreed... this sounds like something that maybe should be included in the issues description. Not sure its a legal question.
Alex Deacon (IPC)
52:32
The latest Draft PPAA is also available at https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/Reference+Materials?preview=/71602375/71602379/PPAA_redline_10Oct17.pdf
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
52:50
Thanks Alex
Alex Deacon (IPC)
53:08
Draft P/P Service Provider Accreditation Program Applicant Guide - https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/Reference+Materials?preview=/71602375/71604239/PP_Guide_IRTv5%5B2%5D.pdf
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
53:30
+1 KR
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
53:31
+1 Kristina…good idea
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
53:32
+1 Kristina
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
53:44
+1 Kristina
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
53:44
Good suggestion Kristina
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
53:50
Maybe someone from the team could come do an expert briefing for us
Margie Milam (BC)
53:56
legal question: What is the legal risk associated with publishing a pseudononymized email address?
Farzaneh
54:51
yes
Brian King (IPC)
54:54
that would be great
Farzaneh
54:59
update would be good
Marc Anderson (Verisign) (RySG)
55:00
Yes to breifing from PPSAI team
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
55:07
Update good
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
55:47
We should consider whether a mini-PIA ought to be done on the PPSAI output/IRT. It was not done at the time, and we are now focused on the GDPR.
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
55:57
Related to Margie's Q: Does it matter which technique was used to implement the pseudonimazation? If so, which are preferred?
Janis Karklins (Chair)
56:18
Maybe IRT briefing can be done in Marrakesh
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
56:57
At one point, our group needs to be educated about DPIAs. Maybe this is a good opportunity for a briefing to be received.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
57:06
+1 Janis - IRT briefing in Marrackesh
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
57:09
Yes, it is the most effective way to review the work done on the PPSAI
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
57:12
+1 PIA
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
58:01
+1 Margie
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
58:08
Gppd point Margie
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
58:16
Pseudonimisation vs. anonymisation has to do with the possibility to trace back the individual
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
58:30
*good
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
58:46
+1 Matt
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
59:01
+1 Matt
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
59:17
+1 matt
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
59:21
+1 Matt
Margie Milam (BC)
59:23
questions are fine -but to ICANN ORg
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
59:25
With regard to the statistics it could be just a spreadsheet
Margie Milam (BC)
59:27
not IRT
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
59:27
But it does seem we need this info, whether in written for or in f2f
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
59:33
written form
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:02:50
So we are up to three potential meetings a week now? Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays? and 120 minutes instead of 90 minutes? Feels like we are moving into Phase 2 crunch time mode right from the start...
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:04:37
certainly frustrating. and for some WHOIS is their full time job. for some it's not!
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:04:55
Volker, your problem is you want to have a life. abandon all hope, ye who enter here…
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:05:06
@volker - and I’ll note that we still have had zero substantial discussions on any topic.
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
01:05:11
it's a little early to be abandoning all hope . . .
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:05:59
@Alex: That only indicates we need to focus more on the meeting slots we agreed to, instead of expanding the slots as needed
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:09:04
what would be the purpose of a study if we don't consider its outcome in our decision on this issue?
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
01:09:28
+1 Sarah. I think it would be helpful for Hadia to clarify that.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:09:42
i thought the study was to inform the determination
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:09:43
I don't think any study will definitively define a policy, so this distinction is probably moot.
Marc Anderson (Verisign) (RySG)
01:09:49
I see the purpose of the study to help inform our phase 2 deliverations
Marc Anderson (Verisign) (RySG)
01:10:26
deliverations = deliberations
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:10:49
in other words: do we need to waste our funds on a study that will not change Rec 17?
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:11:19
Volker, that isn't what we are saying.
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
01:11:38
That's my view, too, @Volker. If the view is that the study output won't be considered, let's save that $100K (or whatever it will cost).
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:11:41
The final report calls for a study as part of the recommendations…
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:11:48
We could not improve Rec 17 without more info, and we ran out of time.
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:11:55
who is "we" Mark?
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:12:02
so you agree with Hadia?
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:12:30
I don't agree with Hadia's approach. so Hadia is saying the study is not binding
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:12:34
I do not share Hadia's concern on this point.
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:12:38
alright. it is not . we knew that
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:13:07
Th estudy is an important imput. But I do not think the output of the study will be "policy must be XXX"
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:13:21
(wow, I cannot type today)
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:13:30
I don't think anyone argued the outcome should be binding
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:13:37
Agreed Mark, but it will help us inform our policy which I think was the point in wanting the study
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:13:40
+1 Farzaneh
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:14:09
+1 Matt
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:14:20
Agree, Matt. Sorry if it seemed I was disagrreeing with you, I am not.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:14:44
@Matt: At IKEA you can furnish a small study for under 500 USD
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
01:14:50
That's an accurate characterization, Caitlin.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:15:27
If we do a study, in my view it has to be a proper risk analysis that includes issues such as competitive advantage (e.g. large firms can afford lawyers as proxies, small enterprises and home based business cannot), cost which (will be passed on to domain name prices) to determine proper legal status under local law of registrant, frailty of consent as a mechanism to determine same, and so on. It is a complete risk assessment that is required.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:15:55
+1 Stephanie
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:16:12
yes agreed Stephanie.
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:16:38
we need to be clear about what should be studied. it's not only about feasibility but risk assessment too
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:17:27
The study is only one input - the work of the team should not only be dependent on it
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
01:18:01
Hate to be the voice of doom here, folks, but the study could easily eat up $100K if we're careful and precise.
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:18:04
no one argued that Hadia. you are arguing against a non existent argument
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
01:18:11
oops. NOT careful and precise.
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
01:18:37
Caitlin is not suggesting we go ahead with the study. We did in Phase 1.
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:19:59
why are we doing the study then ... we could not agree on this so we thought we do a study to inform our discussions. uninformed discussions get us nowhere
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:20:08
Indeed, the study was a workaround in my view, because we could not agree on this point, and some of us felt we had well and truly fought this matter out to a successful resolution in the PPSAI pdp, and the subsequent GAC interventions when they refused to accept the outcome.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:21:08
So potentially it could cost a lot of money and is likely to be contentious. Fair warning, we in NCSG will want to bring in some of our best study experts to ensure that it is properly done.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:24:30
I'm not sure I asgree tha seciton is relevant
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:24:44
it doesn't refer ot leval vs natural?
Brian King (IPC)
01:24:57
3.7.7.4-7
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:25:45
+1 Sarah
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:27:22
time to do a PIA on the picket fence…
Brian King (IPC)
01:27:25
good suggestion, Sarah
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:28:13
@Stephanie, could you explain "PIA on picket fence"? what would that lok like?
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:28:56
will B&B reply to the clarifying questions at the same time?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:29:53
well I have a hard time figuring out the picket fence Mark, so imagining a successful PIA template is even harder….but it needs to be done, because it seems to me that there are plenty of policy decisions inherent in Picket fence thinking that require review under data protection law.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:30:08
"matter of priority" = higher fees?
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:30:09
Modified and revised I hope does not mean censored
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:30:23
Background on the picket fence concept, in case that was needed: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/picket-fence-concept-overview-29jan18-en.pdf
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:30:36
I have asked repeatedly for more clarity on the picket fence (especially while on council) and you can call me slow, but i still fail to understand it in a clear way.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:30:42
ok, thx
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:30:54
@Stephanie, I am similarly "slow"
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:31:25
Glad to hear it Mark, misery loves company!
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:31:41
ha
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:32:44
Again, I’m not sure the point of the study if not to inform our discussions
Brian King (IPC)
01:33:22
Matt, I think it's to "inform but not necessarily bind us."
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:33:42
+1 Matt
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:34:09
Thanks Brian…I’m not sure I said the study was going to bind us to anything
Brian King (IPC)
01:34:44
Nope, I didn't think you did
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:35:04
I think inform just means inform, not decide.
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:35:34
no one argued the study should bind us! again I am hearing counter arguments against an argument that was not even made!
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:35:44
should "May" not be updated to "June" by now?
Janis Karklins (Chair)
01:36:21
4 bulets in dependencies may be the starting point in defining a scope of the study
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:36:25
will that also push the delivery dates accordingly?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:36:49
+1 Janis
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:37:21
+Marc
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:37:36
+1 Marc
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:37:49
+1 Marc
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:38:52
But the timeline shouldn't be open-ended. Need a target for concluding the work with ICANN and amongst ourselves.
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:39:27
+1 Stephanie
Margie Milam (BC)
01:40:15
I am dropping off to drive - will stay on the phone
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:40:42
@Mark: Obviously not, but if the time estimation for the target was based on a certain start date, and that start date is delayed, or deliberations take longer, the target date must move accordingly
Brian King (IPC)
01:41:01
yesterday
Brian King (IPC)
01:41:04
;-)
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:41:42
Would be a good topic for discussion in Morocco
Janis Karklins (Chair)
01:41:52
It should be done in few weeks
Janis Karklins (Chair)
01:42:30
ICANN Org should provide answer when the study will be completed during the ICANN65
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:42:48
the study should be done in a few weeks? that seems very quick
Janis Karklins (Chair)
01:43:10
Questions should be formulated in few weeks
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:43:15
+ 1 Marc One month is good
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:43:18
Thanks for clarifying
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:43:40
I'll need to drop off now thanks all
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:44:35
Great work walking us through everything Caitlin…thank you
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:44:54
Thanks all, and thanks Caitlin!!
Marc Anderson (Verisign) (RySG)
01:44:59
great job Caitlin, thank you
Caitlin Tubergen
01:45:13
Thanks, All!
Brian King (IPC)
01:45:18
thank you Caitlin!
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
01:45:20
bye
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:45:21
thanks all