Please find a link to the worksheet here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pS9Pibanj-Hp6LztZpeERtxdoLsnp4y_-do0vU5VJuw/edit?pli=1

Hello all

Please find a link to the worksheet here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pS9Pibanj-Hp6LztZpeERtxdoLsnp4y_-do0vU5VJuw/edit?pli=1

great, so no one expects. deliverable here．

quick call ;-)

What do you mean Volker?

+1 Hadia

+1 Marc

I'd assumed - apparently incorrectly - that everyone was familiar with the legal advice we received in Phase 1. here's a link to the wiki page from which you can access the Accuracy legal memo. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105386422

+1 Kristina

I’d agree with Marc that the expected deliverable could be any number of different things so “tbd” is appropriate at this time

+1 Matt and Marc

Volker: your audio is pretty quiet

volker please - may you raise your voice

Let's also refer to this email thread about ARS stats: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-May/002034.html

apologies, will speak closer to the microphone next time

seems like we’re drifting into the meat of the topic at hand…thought the goal of this call was simply to review the worksheet

thank you

Based on all of the discussion, feels more and more like “tbd” is appropriate

+1 Matt

+1 Matt

Dont we already have a substantial legal opinion about Accuracy and GDPR?

Yes, thank you. I thought that memo was quite clear, myself

the ARS is _not_ an audit tool. it is a study.

if icann wants to audit specific domain names, they can do that under the terms of the contract.

Volker, if you take that position, that ARS is not an audit, then we go back to step 1.

What's step 1?

+1 Alan W

Volker is absolutely correct.

+1 Georgios

Sounds good Caitlin…thanks

even inaccuracy complaints can still be raised - after the data is disclosed.

Agree we need to do the analysis that Georgios suggested

yes the letter is certainly relevant

+1 Marc

+1 Alan

+1 Alan

What is the difference?

I support a B&B briefing on the condition that everyone attending reads their memo beforehand. Otherwise, it's a waste of their time and ICANN's $.

Agree with Kristina

completely agreed Kristina!

Agree with Kristina also

We have affirmative steps? Whois Accuracy Program

like the annual audit and the 15 day verification window ..... hmmmmmm

+1 sarah

+1 Alan

yes, and all these steps already are in the contract. wrp and verification/validation

well B&B seems to beleive it's enough

+1 Volker

+1 to the above

*believe

Did we not have a compliance briefing on that topic in Phase 1?

+1 Margie

yes, those briefings would all be helpful

i thought they already said that during the last few meetings...

icann meetings

@sarah but this program is on halt now

It has been some time since we heard from compliance

about a year

Hadia - accuracy reporting system is not the same as the whois accuracy program

I am referring to: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#whois-accuracy

enough is with regard a)to the purpose it was collected and b)registrants rights

+1 Alan on both

I also suggested cross-field validation briefing

ARS status: icann provided comments on that at every icann meeting since they paused it

I think this is a great conversation, but I'm a little worried that we are walking a fine line on scope. Can folks make sure to explain why what they are proposing is specific to the scope of this EPDP/GDPR for the purpose to 1) make sure we are within scope, and 2) to avoid disagreements on intent and why what is being proposed is important in the context of GDPR and this EPDP. Accuracy is critically important, but if it isn't clealry within scope, I just want to make sure we don't lose precious time.

+1 Ashley

+1 Ashley

+1 Ashley

+1 Ashley

Thanks, all!

thanks, all.

Thanks!

thanks all

Thank you Caitlin and Terri! !

@Ashley, accuracy may not be in scope, but ensuring that ICANN have the capabilities to enforce its contracts is in scope.