
29:31
Please find a link to the worksheet here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pS9Pibanj-Hp6LztZpeERtxdoLsnp4y_-do0vU5VJuw/edit?pli=1

29:48
Hello all

31:37
Please find a link to the worksheet here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pS9Pibanj-Hp6LztZpeERtxdoLsnp4y_-do0vU5VJuw/edit?pli=1

33:40
great, so no one expects. deliverable here.

33:54
quick call ;-)

34:25
What do you mean Volker?

34:47
+1 Hadia

36:48
+1 Marc

36:55
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

37:28
+1 Kristina

38:33
I’d agree with Marc that the expected deliverable could be any number of different things so “tbd” is appropriate at this time

38:55
+1 Matt and Marc

40:36
Volker: your audio is pretty quiet

41:14
volker please - may you raise your voice

42:50
Let's also refer to this email thread about ARS stats: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-May/002034.html

43:01
apologies, will speak closer to the microphone next time

43:11
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

43:12
thank you

43:24
Based on all of the discussion, feels more and more like “tbd” is appropriate

43:24
+1 Matt

43:52
+1 Matt

44:07
Dont we already have a substantial legal opinion about Accuracy and GDPR?

45:12
Yes, thank you. I thought that memo was quite clear, myself

45:21
the ARS is _not_ an audit tool. it is a study.

45:51
if icann wants to audit specific domain names, they can do that under the terms of the contract.

46:23
Volker, if you take that position, that ARS is not an audit, then we go back to step 1.

46:49
What's step 1?

46:59
+1 Alan W

47:06
Volker is absolutely correct.

49:02
+1 Georgios

50:08
Sounds good Caitlin…thanks

50:28
even inaccuracy complaints can still be raised - after the data is disclosed.

54:01
Agree we need to do the analysis that Georgios suggested

55:44
yes the letter is certainly relevant

55:56
+1 Marc

56:56
+1 Alan

57:01
+1 Alan

57:02
What is the difference?

57:20
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 $.

57:31
Agree with Kristina

57:35
completely agreed Kristina!

57:53
Agree with Kristina also

58:26
We have affirmative steps? Whois Accuracy Program

58:36
like the annual audit and the 15 day verification window ..... hmmmmmm

58:46
+1 sarah

58:49
+1 Alan

59:03
yes, and all these steps already are in the contract. wrp and verification/validation

59:08
well B&B seems to beleive it's enough

59:11
+1 Volker

59:19
+1 to the above

59:23
*believe

01:00:38
Did we not have a compliance briefing on that topic in Phase 1?

01:00:43
+1 Margie

01:00:58
yes, those briefings would all be helpful

01:01:25
i thought they already said that during the last few meetings...

01:01:34
icann meetings

01:02:00
@sarah but this program is on halt now

01:02:01
It has been some time since we heard from compliance

01:02:29
about a year

01:02:30
Hadia - accuracy reporting system is not the same as the whois accuracy program

01:02:44
I am referring to: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#whois-accuracy

01:03:17
enough is with regard a)to the purpose it was collected and b)registrants rights

01:04:21
+1 Alan on both

01:05:02
I also suggested cross-field validation briefing

01:05:08
ARS status: icann provided comments on that at every icann meeting since they paused it

01:05:09
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.

01:05:42
+1 Ashley

01:05:53
+1 Ashley

01:05:56
+1 Ashley

01:06:02
+1 Ashley

01:07:15
Thanks, all!

01:07:17
thanks, all.

01:07:22
Thanks!

01:07:27
thanks all

01:07:29
Thank you Caitlin and Terri! !

01:07:30
@Ashley, accuracy may not be in scope, but ensuring that ICANN have the capabilities to enforce its contracts is in scope.
Zoom would like to update your account settings. When joining a meeting or webinar by entering a meeting ID, participants will be required to enter a password. Participants joining using a meeting invite link will not be required to enter a password. Learn More
This change will be effective on . If approved or declined, the change will take effect immediately.