Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Leon Sanchez (ICANN Board Liaison)
29:17
Or a hair mess
matt serlin
29:50
I can’t participate in any sort of hair competition :)
Leon Sanchez (ICANN Board Liaison)
30:34
I would be a poor participant myself Matt
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
32:34
90 minutes should be the rule, 120 an exception
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
34:08
We hear you well
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
38:58
My apologies, I was sitting waiting in the wrong zoom room.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
39:44
Apologies…, I’m not clear on what Keith is asking us to provide over the next week. Could this be clarified?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
42:15
Thanks, Keith. That answers my question in the chat.
matt serlin (RrSG)
47:01
So to James’ point, what is the best way to get those clarifying questions to council to inform them? Through our GNSO reps or through the ePDP team?
Marika Konings
47:22
Note that the Bylaw provision foresees that after the Council Board discussions: “the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and co mmunicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation. “
matt serlin (RrSG)
47:50
Thanks Marika…very helpful
Marika Konings
50:01
Depending on the voting threshold by which this supplemental recommendation is adopted, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such guidance is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the guidance in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
50:46
@Keith: Yup. That’s my understanding as well.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
50:53
Thanks.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
51:59
@Amr, the Bylaws require that the issue be discussed. It does not require a change. And the Board seems free to accept or reject any new Rec.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
52:47
Agree with Marc.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
52:48
@Alan: Yeah, I think you’re right. Just wondering what the practical implications might be should we still come up with something the Board does not choose to adopt.
Marika Konings
53:35
@Alan - staff’s understanding is also that ‘affirm or modify’ could also mean accepting the Board’s non-adoption without undertaking any further action, but we did flag it as something to confirm as being consistent with the Bylaw provision.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
53:49
It seems pretty clear the Board can take whatever ultimate action it wants. Whether in this case it will end up with a fully consistent and complete GDPR implementation is a different question.
Keith Drazek (GNSO Council Chair)
56:09
Exactly Janis, thanks very much for the summary.
matt serlin (RrSG)
57:43
thanks Keith
Keith Drazek (GNSO Council Chair)
57:56
I will now drop. Thanks everyone!
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
58:03
Thanks Keith
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
58:39
Thanks
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
59:13
Thank you Keith
Marika Konings
59:38
Note that you see the RySG proposed replacement questions in the comment on the right hand side
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:04:02
Agreeing that we should stick with the text in the comment from Marika drafted by MarcA. (vs. the yellow highlighted text)
matt serlin (RrSG)
01:05:18
+1 to Alex and Marc
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:05:28
+1 to RySG comments
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:06:08
@Farzi we are just going to put the charter questions
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:09:02
how do we treat the input received from SO/ACs in response to these questions?
Marika Konings
01:09:54
The EPDP Team will have a responsibility to review and consider any input received as part of its deliberations.
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:14:59
@Caitlin - Does the “Clarifying Legal Questions Table” document live on the wiki somewhere? I’m not seeing it….
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:15:42
Alex - https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/Action+Items+-+Phase+2
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:15:45
2nd in the chart there, I think
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:16:23
got it…thanks.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:16:24
+1 to stephanie
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:16:43
+1 Steph
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:16:50
+1
matt serlin (RrSG)
01:17:05
Agree to not limiting the participation to lawyers
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:17:28
+1
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:18:31
Agreed - easier to review & confirm when it's written down.
Marika Konings
01:21:32
Note that this document was posted to the mailing list by Janis earlier today
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:22:52
@Marika yes, i got a chance to read it
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:23:05
*it
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:23:16
+1 Kristina - this is the point I wanted to make.
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:23:39
+1 Kristina
matt serlin (RrSG)
01:23:41
agree with Kristina…
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:23:50
@Kristina: +1
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:24:18
We discussed an earlier version - will need to review this once again in our C.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:24:20
Additionally we are all voluneers . I even got the document and due to work commitments, not able to substantively review.
Fiona Asonga (ISPCP)
01:24:36
+1 Kristina
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:24:51
How are we going to treat late comments? I would have to have late comments dismissed, we are stretched very very thin and have a lot of disparate material to keep an eye on.
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:25:09
That was hate to have, sorry for typo
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:26:29
A request for access is a request for disclosure. Why not track the language of the laws?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:28:56
I’d just go with the definitions in the google doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UqsaC1I9bCykNXp1O0FsGuh3Y09b-b9jtHEsaptTOkk/edit
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:29:12
I certainly regard definitions as key. But then I have been engaged in the drafting of privacy policies for a long time, and have witnessed what happens when you conflate your terminology.
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
01:30:03
I thought this was just intended to guide our discussions and to asisst us in understanding. Not sure why we are getting wrapped around the axel.
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
01:30:50
I think what is really useful, is that now at least it is clear that the folks who use the word "access" are *not* assuming what is under "right of access."
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:31:01
Well why do we have to agree with them then? These are just recommendations … and we can disagree later on
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:31:59
otherwise if these are definitions we agree to then they can be invoked to counter argue against our points
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:32:38
+1 Alan. I think the distinction is important and using different, defined terms will help.
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
01:32:40
I don't think folks are "attached," more a matter of just trying to understand why we have been using it.
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:33:13
I appreciate that the clarification is in there, third parties do not have a right of access, so I take your point Ashley. However, let us pause and recognize that we are continuing to use the word access for some reason…..is it because folks are still aiming for conflation, or do they just refuse to accept that we are drafting a policy to give effect to the law (GDPR)?
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
01:33:29
And the important take away is, that it was *not* used in a way to assume full and unfettered access. So, if nothing else, it is a good clarification IMHO
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:33:53
+1 Ahsley
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:34:07
Right of Access under GDPR is the data subject's right, not a third party's right
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
01:34:18
That is exactly what I am saying Sarah.
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:34:28
Agree Sarah.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:34:51
If we have a working definition for “access” and “disclosure”, we can easily use those to discuss requests for either by any party. Not clear on why we actually need to have a working definition of requests of third-parties for access to begin with.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:35:06
Thanks for the agreement! IN that case, let's call access what the data subject does when they get their own data, and disclosure is when it's given to a third party :)
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:35:07
Ditto Sarah. I will have to continue to point out where we are misusing it, not because I love being pedantic about this stuff, but because it is important.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:35:37
Yeah but third party “access” to “full set” of non-public gTLD domain name registration worries. me.
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:35:38
And just think, I am not the lawyer here....
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:35:55
Farzaneh - right, tha'ts why I propose to remove the 2nd bullet point and the sentence that follows it
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:36:01
the 'disclosure' definition is much more clear
Terri Agnew
01:36:11
FYI, the audio cast is having technical issues, we are working on the issue.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:36:18
yeah I agree
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:36:42
I think that' sbelow
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:36:43
yeah
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:37:29
Nonscrolling makes life more difficult, for sure. Never thought I would miss Adobe so much
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:38:52
You can scroll to your hearts content at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uoolznpxb0JxddFZA5n9ueRkB4tjDOQQCoMeQWpbiSc/edit
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:39:25
The word access has been used by the EC and in other correspondence with the EDPB, there is nothing wrong with using the word nor does it affect the data subject rights. In all cases disclosure by contracted parties will lead to access of the requester to the granted data. The oucome does not change either way
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:41:04
If the outcome doesn’t change why not be cautious and use the word in its true legal meaning? Why insist on using the term access?
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:41:45
+1 Farzaneh
Margie Milam (BC)
01:41:46
I need to drop to drive -- will remain on the phone
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
01:41:47
I don't think we are advocating to use it. Just to explain the difference of views and how these terms are/were being used.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:41:57
OK - context is always useful, for sure
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
01:42:04
Just trying to understand each other. :-)
Leon Sanchez (ICANN Board Liaison)
01:45:36
I have to leave the call early. My apologies for not being able to stay till the end
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:45:52
bye Leon
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
01:47:17
This document is awesome. SO MUCH WORK TO DO.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:48:29
RrSG sent comments on this doc, about an hour before the meeting started
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:53:37
I need to drop, thanks all.
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:54:03
OK - thanks. makes sense.
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
01:55:42
The upshot of using Zoom is that volunteers really have to print everything to prepare for calls, I am afraid. I hope we can get a paper allowance from the savings in the conversion from Adobe.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:56:07
Will also need to plant more trees.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:56:19
Y’know…, for the public interest. ;)
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
01:56:26
Totally agree with Alan. The order of topics of discussion is very important.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:57:21
@Alan W: +1
Alex Deacon (IPC)
01:57:50
@Alan - our topics should be based on the charter questions. Informed by any legal input required.
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:58:49
Excellent work Marika. As soon as we reach agreement can we add a visual timeline (with milestones and critical path) if I am not asking too much...
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:00:04
agreed with Ashley.
Marika Konings
02:00:04
Yes, we already have the rough timeline from the approach slides, but we can definitely expand on that once the group agrees on the approach and target timing (noting that we will need to depict flexibility as well)
matt serlin (RrSG)
02:00:36
+1 Ashley and it should be a living document as our work moves forward
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:00:52
Also +1 @Ashley.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:03:48
ICANN is a controller ......................
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
02:05:13
Indeed it is.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:05:16
Agree that ICANN need to be clear, but regardless we are going to need to facilitate access under whatever those rules are.
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
02:06:07
yes but unfortunately the rules are different depending on the status. There are different requirements depending on the roles, although there is never any escaping liability
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:08:17
well I had objected to having priority two and one etc. but to no avail. So I formally give up and join one of these groups like a true martyr
Marika Konings
02:08:20
For those not able to join by phone, please make sure to provide your input in the google docs for the priority 2 items.
Marika Konings
02:08:57
See https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/b.+Worksheets
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
02:09:40
So we have a document from Steve that we can review in advance?
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:09:54
@Marika: Would it be ok to capture that as an action item? Would be helpful in flagging this.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:10:09
Stephanie, great question
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
02:10:10
Excellent point Kristina
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:10:21
BBQ group?
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
02:10:32
Steve will explain... :-)
Marika Konings
02:10:39
@Amr - the input on the priority 2 worksheets?
stephanie perrin (NCSG)
02:10:58
Steve is a coder at heart, I doubt this is an intellectual exercise.
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
02:11:03
+1 Amr as well as written confirmation from Steve of Janis' understanding.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:12:00
@Marika: Yes. The priority 2 worksheets.
Alex Deacon (IPC)
02:12:01
A one pager would be helpful - including a description of what problem they are addressing/trying to solve.
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:12:17
So this is a parallel ePDP Phase 2 or a reboot of RDAP or an alternate universe TSG? I’m not clear on how we categorize Steve’s “intellectual exercise”?
matt serlin (RrSG)
02:12:46
Some sort of document ahead of this call would be very useful as others have mentioned
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry - RySG)
02:13:22
With apologies, I need to drop. I have a long-standing (as in several years) call that begins momentarily and I wasn't able to delay its start on this short notice.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:13:50
@James: +1
matt serlin (RrSG)
02:13:52
+1 James…we could spend many calls hearing from folks who have good ideas
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
02:15:17
I still think hearing what he has to say can only be helpful, even if we don't like it. Why keep ourselves in the dark.
Greg Aaron - SSAC
02:15:52
I will trust the leadership team to vet experts who have well-developed strawmen that can help advance our work. I trust Janeis and friends will be judicious and will make sure htese will be worth our time.
matt serlin (RrSG)
02:16:02
Don’t disagree Ashley but just worry there could be others who want to get similar presentations from any number of others
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:16:08
I have no objection to listen to what Steve has to share with us at this point, but a short briefing ahead of the call with him would be appreciated.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:16:15
I agree with Ashley. Steve after all knows what WHOIS is. no harm in hearing what he has to say. But I would like to know more about how he is carrying out his intellectual exercise.
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:16:24
I agree, Ashley, but there are at least two other folks socializing their ideas, and my question is who gets an “audience” with the EPDP, and who doesn’t (and who decides)
Ashley Heineman (GAC)
02:16:32
Hmmm... I beleive I proposed a session at Marrakech to do such a thing... and the GNSO opposed. :-)
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:16:36
+1 Ashley - the presentation is only informative -
Mark Svancarek (BC) (MSFT)
02:16:50
I'd like Steve to present, but I have no objection to a brief overview submitted in advance, as Amr suggests
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:17:51
yep. Would be nice to know an overview. if not trademarked!
James Bladel (RrSG)
02:18:11
That week is currently free.
matt serlin (RrSG)
02:18:26
Seems like that week works ok
Marika Konings
02:18:54
A request for support will need to go to the Council and then the ICANN Board to confirm resources, although the Board has confirmed that resources have been set aside, so hopefully the process will be quick.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:19:29
@Marika: I hope so. Thanks.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:19:55
That week works for me too
caitlin.tubergen
02:22:42
I can do that, Amr - thanks!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:22:43
Thanks all. Bye.
Farzaneh Badii (NCSG)
02:22:46
Bye all
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:22:47
thank you all
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:22:50
@Caitlin: Thanks.
Fiona Asonga (ISPCP)
02:22:56
Thanks bye
matt serlin (RrSG)
02:22:58
thanks all
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
02:23:00
Thanks all bye