<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1077896531;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-967036180 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1502894334;
mso-list-template-ids:-1923160628;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-start-at:6;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1566842670;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-818795856 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:54.4pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:90.4pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:126.4pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:162.4pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:198.4pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:234.4pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:270.4pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:306.4pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:342.4pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:1829902658;
mso-list-template-ids:-781161478;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-start-at:4;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:1832604089;
mso-list-template-ids:2118658108;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;}
@list l4:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level3
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level4
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level6
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level7
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level9
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear EPDP Team:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Marika, Berry, and Caitlin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">--<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Action Items<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">EPDP Team Members to review the
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/10IQOJDwEpHj5meIb4P8JAIW2qb2A0oVp/edit">
remaining yellow items</a>, provide additional information in response to questions, and indicate items that are still “cannot live with” and provide alternate text that is acceptable by
<b><u>COB Friday, 3 July</u></b>. <o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #71</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Proposed Agenda</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Thursday 2 July 2020 at 14.00 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:67.7pt;text-indent:-49.7pt">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:67.7pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:67.7pt;text-indent:-49.7pt">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:67.7pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:67.7pt;text-indent:-49.7pt">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:.95in;text-indent:-50.0pt">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">4. Consider outstanding items / questions in relation to <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1dlOhPn5djTVLFBw7TROID0rWKgGIRhrr_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8K75qGdDlOta4kh6k2F0jrT195M3tF3J_Fxcz6EvuG2kYKDeA67ZTEnthHXAPVXH&m=zf4BH346QQolW1XuNTbW2K9qxLRsEcRSI7OPBpOidB8&s=fZ87lJiU0-FUdkQWndxza2yXDuGUPXBuSgfvwpCg4Mw&e="><span style="color:#0563C1">recommendation
7/16 (automation) [docs.google.com]</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:18.4pt;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The draft on the screen was developed by the Staff Support Team after the Team’s last discussion of this item
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:18.4pt;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">A small team worked with staff on this version but did not come to any agreement on this version<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:18.4pt;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The first change was to number the various paragraphs here<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:18.4pt;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Updating processed in an automated manner instead of automatically disclose<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:18.4pt;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In 16.4, the footnote now appears in the text and explains how a CP can notify ICANN org of a situation where the CP cannot automate a certain category of use cases<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:18.4pt;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Following the notification, some members suggested a notice and comment process<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:18.4pt;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">As soon as CP becomes aware that the exemption is no longer applicable, it is required to notify ICANN org to resume the processing<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-left:18.4pt;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Updates to implementation guidance – updated to make the text clearer. In this specific recommendation, four use cases have been identified.
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Review outstanding items / questions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">b.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">EPDP Team Feedback<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ol start="2" type="a">
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Footnote 3 conflicts with text regarding decisions where there may be some manual review – suggest deleting footnote 3<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">On 16.4, confused why a waiver only addresses the legal permissibility issue and not the technical or commercial feasibility
issue – these should be included in the exemption process.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">For 16.5 – all that is required is for a CP to get this waiver is to send a notification to ICANN. How did the small team
envision this working? In the spirit of automation, this should be automated as well.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Regarding a data subject’s rights to object to processing based solely on automation – where would that fit into all of
this?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Have to resolve the conflict b/w footnote 3 and 16.11 in the recommendation. The “may” is unclear as to when it is invoked.
Would envision that a use case could be approved, subject to there being human intervention, but the wording does not seem to allow for the fact that human intervention must be required.
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The last sentence of 16.8 seems to belong in 16.5<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This can be put in a separate section for the sake of clarity<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Need confirmation from ICANN org that it can refuse exemption requests that are not deemed to be reasonable<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Confused as to how we ended up with processing of disclosure decisions instead of automated disclosure decisions – this
text changes fundamentally what this section means – suggest automated disclosure decisions and related processing.
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Regarding determination of permissibility and feasibility – this needs to be made by the contracted party. For 16.4 – there
is the word “demonstrates,” this conflicts with 16.5 and the word notifies. 16.4 should be changed to notified. 16.5 is a good solution – had originally objected to a process akin to the data retention waiver process.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">By having CPs prove to ICANN that it has a legal issue, it puts the onus on a CP to prove that something is not legally
permissible, and this should be the other way around. Could “demonstrate” in 16.4 be changed to “determine”?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If there has been an exemption request that has been determined and notified, and that exemption request is granted – there
should be a mechanism where similarly-situated contracted parties could get the same exemption.
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Re: automated disclosure and automated processing, it sounded like terms were redefined. Where we talk about legally permissible,
and technically and commercially feasible, technically feasible and commercially feasible need to be broken out. There could be standardization for automation. Overall concern regarding Org’s agility to facilitate this waiver process.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Automation is technically feasible – full stop. Legally permissible – we’re on the right track with a jurisdictional opt
out. For commercially feasible – this is a chance to improve this and not leave it to the sole discretion of contracted parties. What types of scenarios would make it not commercially feasible for a contracted party to automate? If CPs are not commercially
able to connect to the SSAD, that is a problem. We need some guardrails around commercial feasibility.
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In this final report we determined a few areas where automated disclosure must be done, and then recommendation 19 kicks
in. Do not see a place where CPs can opt out of commercial feasibility.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Agree that if you are not up to the task to be contracted party, there are other options (like becoming a reseller). For
when a registrar that is not commercially feasible, it could be a registrar with no registrations or only has a small number of corporate registrations<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">For 16.1 and 16.2 – any problems with proposed text?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">No.
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">For 16.3 – any problems?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">No problem with 16.3 if commercially and technically feasible could be added to 16.4; otherwise, the “must” is problematic<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Prefer the obligation to be to demonstrate that what is proposed is not legally permissible<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The right for data subjects to object is already covered under legal permissibility<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Footnote 3 is a footnote to the title of the section – when will we discuss this?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In 16.4, would the technical and commercial feasibility apply in the same way that legal permissibility is captured here?
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If “demonstrates” becomes “determines,” this would be OK<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">On 16.4, could we say “the CP can get an exemption from automated processing but must notify ICANN” – the current language
implies that ICANN will decide whether the exemption applies or not.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">With the language in 16.5, this is OK.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">IPC has a concern with changing demonstrates to determines – the right to unilaterally determine whether they are going
to follow the policy or not is unacceptable without the ability to follow some guardrails. Technically and commercially feasible is too subjective.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The potential with abuse here is not negligible, but uncomfortable with ICANN determining what is commercially feasible
for a contracted party.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Suggest doing a copy/paste including demonstrate with commercial and technical feasibility (without the DPIA clause)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Do not know why we are adding commercially and technically feasible<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Could live with determine for legal feasibility, but the technical/commercial, it needs to be demonstrated due to the subjective
nature of this<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</ol>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">For implementation purposes, how would the CP demonstrate this is not technically and commercially feasible, who would they demonstrate
this to and how?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ol start="2" type="a">
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">For clarity, if a Contracted Party demonstrates that automated processing of disclosure decisions for the use cases specified
in this recommendation or through the processes detailed in Recommendation #19 is not commercially or technically feasible, the Contracted Party MUST notify ICANN Org it requires an exemption from automated processing of disclosure decisions of the identified
use case(s).<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The technical and commercial feasibility is determined in 16.3 and in Rec. 19 – do not agree to adding this paragraph. The
CP would need to demonstrate this to ICANN.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Couple of issues to address: the technical feasibility needs to go – it will be technically feasible full stop. For commercially
feasible – before we can agree that there is some reason for it to be NOT commercially feasible, there needs to be guardrails<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Do not think we should make a determination now over what would be technically or commercially feasible
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Have a problem with a unilateral determination of commercial feasibility. Smaller registrars in developing countries may
have commercial issues. Could we create a special exemption based on economic hardship in developing countries?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Can the group live without 16.4bis?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Do CPs really need exemptions for commercial and technical feasibility?
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Yes, but we need to find a way so that this is not abused.
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Suggest adding in 16.4bis – after contracted party, especially small in size, operating in developing economies<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Small in size is not a guardrail – how small? How is that defined? How is developing economy defined? If you can’t do this,
it’s a key part of the DNS, so you can’t be a registrar. Cannot live with this as is. Alternative proposal is to deleted 16.4bis.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Small registrars have the option of automating this – they could voluntarily ask the CGM to automate decisions for them.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Small in size is not the right number. Not sure how to close the gap between now and the day where someone releases an opensource
AI.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">CPS may or may not automate their own decision processes on whether to disclose. Thought we were talking about disclosure
when SSAD has made the decision.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">16.5<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">All that CPs are asking for a path or open door – what about through implementation and allowing for the opting out of edge
cases and remove 16.4<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">For 16.5 – if this is for a legal reason, this would be the only way to do this
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Question from ICANN org – the language in 16.6 seems to contemplate a notice and comment process – regarding the supporting
information, what is the supporting information? <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If a CP determines that there is a legal impermissibility, they have to provide the supporting documentation.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">MUST the DPIA be included for public comment?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The CP needs to provide the documentation that led them to determine that there is a legal issue.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Concerned about the language in this exemption, particularly the language regarding DPIA. This sounds like a WHOIS Conflicts
procedure. There shouldn’t be a DPIA to stop disclosing. All the CP needs is short text with a sound argument as to why it can’t release the data. Do not need to overcomplicate this. If ICANN org is willing to perform a mediation process, that is fine – but
have to remember that the burden is on the CP to comply with law. <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">"Supporting documentation" that is, what information supports the claim that the automation is no longer legally permissible.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This only kicks in if a CP exemption is challenged – goes to reason that CP that sought the exemption has their supporting
rationale, and the CP would provide the supporting information as part of the process in 16.6</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If input needs to be replaced by supporting information, that could be helpful.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This language leaves out important questions – must the CP provide the supporting information to ICANN – may ICANN publish
it? Can the Rr mark it as confidential? What if the parties cannot come to agreement, then what happens?
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">For 16.6, instead of input, say supporting documentation. Add further details will be developed during the implementation
phase.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Affected stakeholders want to see the supporting documentation, but there is no clarity on whether ICANN org can publish
this or share it with affected stakeholders. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Consider adding in case of challenge, ICANN must provide notice and comment process.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ICANN providing a notice and comment process is how affected stakeholders would become aware of this.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Intent under 16.4, and this may not have been clear enough, as part of notification, supporting information would be provided.
There may need to be questions worked out in implementation regarding confidentiality. ICANN received this notification, for these reasons, are there concerns with this?
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">MUST the info be presented to ICANN, can it be marked as confidential, must it be published, how would disputes be resolved?
Need further information.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Could this be sorted out in implementation?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Helpful that it would be published and there would be an opportunity for comment. If everything is left to implementation,
this would be a years-long process.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Regarding changing input to supporting information – this change was likely made in error. Supporting documentation is more
restrictive than input </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In 16.4, make clear that notification to ICANN org also includes supporting information and move 16.6 back to its original
state</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">16.7</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">No issues.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">16.8</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Last sentence of 16.8 – what is subject to review? What action could be taken by ICANN org in response?
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This last sentence should be separated from 16.8</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">16.8bis “Unreasonable notifications may be subject to review,”</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">As a structural drafting matter – this probably belongs higher and attach onto 16.4. The MAY language needs to be changed.
This is an exemption to ICANN Consensus Policy – language “ICANN Compliance MUST review exemption notifications”
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">How is ICANN to make a determination on what is a reasonable exemption?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ICANN Compliance should be ICANN org to allow more flexibility</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Under what circumstances would a review take place?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Based on this policy, it’s not clear what ICANN is to do if an exemption is unreasonable?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">How does ICANN enforce this? This is enforced by ICANN Compliance.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ICANN org MUST reverse the exemption if it is found by ICANN to be incorrect, abusive, or no longer applicable.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This will be added to 16.4
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">16.9</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">No issues.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">16.10</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">No issues</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">16.11</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Delete footnote 3 when 16.11 is endorsed</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Instead of 16.4bis, consider: add a footnote in 16.3 where it says ‘commercially’ that says something like: “During implementation,
further consideration will need to be given to the commercial feasibility for registrars that may receive a very limited number of requests that will meet the criteria for automated processing of disclosure decisions and whether the financial burden of enabling
this automated processing is of such a nature that an exemption may need to be provided. As part of this consideration, the CGM also should consider how it can facilitate the integration of a CP’s system with the SSAD to reduce any potential burden of automated
processing of disclosure decisions.”</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Is this footnote acceptable to everyone?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">All can live with this.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It is conceivable that we have use cases but they can only be automated with human intervention at the SSAD. Propose the
following text: "The SSAD MAY use human review for any automated SSAD decisions, but there may be specific classes of disclosure requests approved for automation where human review MUST be included" – proposed footnote to 16.11</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ALAC put in a comment that the SSAD should allow for centralized decisions – 16.11 said which may involve non-automated
review at the central gateway. The SSAD could make a decision, but there must be human review at the SSAD. Not saying they will do this, just allowing for it<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Do not read 16.11 for the CGM to involve itself in the automated disclosure or intervene in the disclosure process itself
– the above-proposed footnote for 16.11 is confusing<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The confusion here may be over the word “making a decision”. For use case on UDRP verification, the legal guidance said
there is a legal effect on data subject, so it cannot be automated. Maybe a way to address the concern – could the CGM see that there is a legitimate request and since the CGM confirmed the criteria are met, but by allowing a human to review whether the criteria
for automation have been met, but the disclosing of the data is directed and automated.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">What is confusing is we are not actually spelling out who is accountable for the disclosure decision in these hybrid decisions.
At the end of the day, this needs to be decided in controllership agreements. The relevant question – who is the controller that made this decision, and does it require intervention from the contracted parties<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Expectation – there could be personal data transferred as part of this<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This is not a prohibition, but it is the expectation.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This was added for a concern by contracted parties – it’s a MAY and there is nothing from prohibiting a CP from sending
over personal data<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Implementation guidance – remove parenthetical in first paragraph (no human intervention)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Support Staff to number the implementation guidance
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If the use cases move into policy, this could complicate Rec. 19<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">When the conversation happens on particular use cases, the responsible parties would need to say yes or no<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Leave it to Contracted Parties until there is definitive guidance the CGM would be solely liable<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The purpose of the mechanism is to address this – this language makes it seem that one party can decide on its own outside
of the mechanism. The mechanism is intended to look at the law, determine if there is a use case for automation, and if the CPs agreed as a whole, that would stand.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Seem to be batting the automation issue b/w Rec. 16 and Rec. 19. Automation rec says if it meets the requirements, it must
be automated<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">16.4 is about individual contracted parties believing something is not legally permissible<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This language was added what is legally permissible and by whom
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Does anyone object to leaving the language as is?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">No.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Should 6(1)(e) automation be taken out?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">GAC reps asked for this inclusion – 6(1)(e) lawful basis – this was accepted by the rest of the team<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If this part of the policy, should specify that we’re talking about GDPR<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo3">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">c.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Confirm next steps<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:.95in;text-indent:-50.0pt">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">5. Continue run through of <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_10IQOJDwEpHj5meIb4P8JAIW2qb2A0oVp_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8K75qGdDlOta4kh6k2F0jrT195M3tF3J_Fxcz6EvuG2kYKDeA67ZTEnthHXAPVXH&m=zf4BH346QQolW1XuNTbW2K9qxLRsEcRSI7OPBpOidB8&s=Cp5KBdlHUrC7LVBx6x1qgm-MeMtCQqt5PmS0fWR3sjM&e="><span style="color:#0563C1">yellow
items [docs.google.com]</span></a> (items identified for further discussion / clarification)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Consider yellow items identified for recommendations (continuing with rec #15 and moving down the list)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ol start="3" type="a">
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Suggest going to Rec. 8<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alternative language provided for Rec. 8<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Team has decided that it’s up to the CP to determine the request – the new language is confusing. What is Compliance supposed
to do exactly and how is this supposed to work<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Wanted to preserve a roll for ICANN compliance to investigate disclosures from a single entity that are problematic<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ICANN org – ICANN compliance can only enforce what the policy says, and the policy just says to evaluate – what is compliance
supposed to do about that?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Conflict b/w first and second sentence – if you can’t do the first sentence, you can’t do the second sentence.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There are plenty of things ICANN Compliance can do in terms of metrics<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If a reporter makes requests of a similar nature, and one registrar always accepts them and another denies them, Compliance
could ask for a reason of how you did the balancing test.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There are some things in the recommendation that compliance should be able to act on request is denied solely based on x,
for example<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Concerned that the language that is highlighted is of two minds – will not address the merits but will address unreasonable
denials<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Could ICANN enforce MUST provide reasonable access? Would it help if the language is updated to say “typically”
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">MUST provide access where reasonable instead of must provide reasonable access<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Proposal to accept Laureen’s proposed updated language<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Recommendation 2, Accreditation of Governmental Entities – 86 suggestion from ICANN org to replace data controller to relevant
contracted party or Central Gateway Manager, or applicable<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">OK with this change.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Item 87 – footnote that says IGOs and how they could get accredited.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Would the current wording allow for the host to accredit the IGO?
<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Next list of items deal with Logging Recommendation<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Are identity providers required to log, or is this something that could be determined in the implementation phase?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Leave as is.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Isn’t the general category of denial sent to the gateway and the requestor under Rec. 6?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Item 82 – question for the BC – change that was made that says disclosure decisions including a written rationale must be
stored. Is written necessary?<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Concern can be addressed now that rationale = reason for decision<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">b.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">EPDP Team feedback<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">c.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Confirm next steps<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ol start="3" type="a">
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">All other yellow items should be handled online – provide written input and focus on what you “cannot live with” that needs
to get addressed in the report.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:.95in;text-indent:-50.0pt">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">6. Wrap and confirm next steps (5 minutes):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.1pt;text-indent:-72.1pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo5">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span>i.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt">5 July: distribution of updated draft Final Report.
<span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.1pt;text-indent:-72.1pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo5">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span>ii.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt">6 - 10 July: silent week – opportunity for EPDP Team to review draft Final Report and flag any minor edits (no reopening of previously
discussed & addressed issues).<span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.1pt;text-indent:-72.1pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo5">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span>iii.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">14 July: tentative EPDP Team meeting to address any issues that may require EPDP Team input / guidance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.1pt;text-indent:-72.1pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo5">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span>iv.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">17 July: distribution of Final Report and consensus designations. As a reminder, the Chair will make an evaluation of
the support achieved for the recommendations and publish its designation for the group to review. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.1pt;text-indent:-72.1pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo5">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span>v.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">20 - 24 July: opportunity for EPDP Team to respond to consensus designations, review by Chair of input received, if any,
confirmation by Chair of designation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.1pt;text-indent:-72.1pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo5">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span>vi.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">24 July: deadline for minority statements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.1pt;text-indent:-72.1pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo5">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span>vii.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">At the latest by 31 July: submission of Final Report to the GNSO Council<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>