[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next week's meeting
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sat Apr 23 12:16:27 UTC 2016
I will also be an apology. I have conflicting meetings.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-04-22 0:22, Holly Raiche wrote:
> Hi
> I’ll be an apology for this meeting
>
> Holly
> On 22 Apr 2016, at 3:57 am, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Not having heard any objections, we’ll go ahead and re-organise next
>> week’s meeting as follows:
>>
>> * 15.30 – 16.15 UTC Data Sub-Team
>> * 16.15 – 17.00 UTC Privacy Sub-Team
>> * 17.00 – 17.45 UTC Purpose Sub-Team
>>
>>
>> Note that this will be scheduled as one call (same dial in number and
>> AC room) to facilitate participation for those that are involved in
>> multiple sub-teams, but there is no obligation for WG members to
>> attend all three sub-team meetings, unless you would like to.
>> However, if you are not a member of a sub-team but would like to
>> join, you are encouraged to participate as an observer to allow ample
>> opportunity for the sub-team to progress in its work.
>>
>> Call details will be sent out in a separate email. Please ignore the
>> notice that went out earlier today for the ‘normal’ WG meeting.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Marika
>>
>> From:<gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Marika
>> Konings <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
>> Date:Wednesday 20 April 2016 at 13:16
>> To:"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>,
>> "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject:Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes & Action items from today's meeting
>>
>> Dear Steve,
>>
>> The proposal is indeed to have 45-minute calls for each of the
>> sub-teams that are to be scheduled consecutively around the time of
>> the normal WG meeting as the assumption is that people have kept that
>> time free in their diaries. Of course, for some that are involved in
>> multiple sub-teams as well as staff, it may mean up to a 135-minute
>> meeting.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marika
>>
>> From:"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>> Date:Wednesday 20 April 2016 at 13:00
>> To:Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
>> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject:RE: Notes & Action items from today's meeting
>>
>> I am not sure I understand the proposal but would not be in favor of
>> having a 135-minute WG call next week. However, it may make sense to
>> schedule 45-minute calls for each of the subteams as they all have a
>> lot of work to complete. These could be scheduled consecutively, or
>> in another pattern, so long as not overlapping (for those who are on
>> more than one subteam).
>> *<image001.gif>*
>> *Steven J. Metalitz*|*Partner, through his professional corporation*
>> T: 202.355.7902|met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>**
>> *Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
>> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>> *_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY
>> FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED
>> RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION,
>> AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS
>> MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT
>> ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE
>> IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL
>> OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS
>> FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
>> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org]*On
>> Behalf Of*Marika Konings
>> *Sent:*Wednesday, April 20, 2016 2:04 AM
>> *To:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:*[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes & Action items from today's meeting
>> Dear All,
>> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s RDS PDP
>> Working Group meeting. Please take particular note of action item #8
>> which requires your input within the next 48 hours.
>> Best regards,
>> Marika
>> *Notes & Action items - 20 April 2016*
>> /1. Roll call / SOIs/
>>
>> * Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect
>> * Update to SOIs: Susan Kawaguchi - Facebook has acquired a
>> registrar. Will update SOI shortly to reflect this.
>>
>> /2. Report from each small team: Privacy, Data, Purpose/
>> *Purpose team*: See checklist circulated. A couple more documents are
>> in the process of being reviewed, many have already been submitted.
>> Aim to have everything completed in next 48 hours. Initial
>> discussions have started on what are the most important documents and
>> rationale for why these are the most important. These include so far:
>>
>> * EWG Recommendations - identified very clearly purposes behind
>> data use (see relevant sections)
>> * 2012 WHOIS Policy Review Team Report
>> * SAC055
>> * 2007 GAC Communique regarding WHOIS
>> * 2013 RAA - includes specific uses by registrars
>> * Article 29 WP opinion (03/2003) on purpose limitation
>> * Article 29 WP on ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts
>> with Privacy Law (2007)
>> * Article 29 WP on legitimate interests of data controller (2014)
>>
>> Many of the other documents were interesting and somewhat related,
>> but didn't specificly identify potential purposes.
>> *Action item #1*: Sub-team to try and reach rough consensus in the
>> next week on a list of the most important documents related to purpose
>> *Action item #2*: pull out some very short bullet points of the main
>> value and points made in these most important document from the summaries
>> *Data team*: The lines between data and privacy and data and purpose
>> aren't always clear in the documents reviewed. Issue of European Data
>> Protection legislation has been flagged - moving target at the moment
>> with new legislation under consideration. Most if not all documents
>> have now been summarised. Initial discussions have started on what
>> are the most important documents and rationale for why these are the
>> most important. These include so far:
>>
>> * Whois Task Force Final Report
>> * SAC 054
>> * EWG Recommendations, including tutorials and FAQs
>> * RA Spec 4
>>
>> What are next steps? Fact that some things are still evolving, such
>> as laws and regulation, it is something to be conscious of, but no
>> need to worry about too much at this stage as some items only come
>> back in later phases of the PDP..
>> *Action item #3*: Sub-team to try and reach rough consensus in the
>> next week on a list of the most important documents related to purpose
>> *Action item #4:*pull out some very short bullet points of the main
>> value and points made in these most important document from the summaries
>> *Privacy team*: Number of summaries have already come in. Initial
>> discussions have started on what are the most important documents and
>> rationale for why these are the most important. These include so far:
>>
>> * SAC 054
>> * EWG Recommendations
>>
>> *Action item #5*: Sub-team to try and reach rough consensus in the
>> next week on a list of the most important documents related to purpose
>> *Action item #6*: pull out some very short bullet points of the main
>> value and points made in these most important document from the summaries
>> /3. Confirm next steps and target date to complete small team outputs/
>>
>> * Small team outputs are more than most important documents. List
>> of questions have been circulated (see 'plan to consolidate
>> summaries and complete & present team outputs')
>> * Each team encouraged to provide their feedback to these questions
>> in the next week.
>> * Sub-teams will need to verify summaries submitted to ensure
>> nothing was missed. In the case of some documents, it may be
>> difficult to only have a few bullet points. However, bullet
>> points may help guide full WG in a concise way but recognising
>> that the WG may need to dig into the full details at some point.
>> * Staff will consolidate summaries into one document for each
>> sub-team. Some summaries are uneven depending on the expertise of
>> the members of the team - those with specific expertise or where
>> involved in the development of these documents, are encouraged to
>> review the summaries.
>> * Focus on relevance of the work for the PDP, not necessarily
>> overall importance / relevance in a broader context.
>> * Be careful to not jump ahead in relation to conclusions and
>> blending issues. Maybe first two teams could look at purpose and
>> data without looking at privacy concerns and not mix things?
>> Leave privacy considerations to privacy sub-team and not blend at
>> this stage.
>>
>> *Action item #7*: Those with specific expertise and/or those who
>> where involved in the development of some of these documents, are
>> encouraged to review the summaries to ensure that the key points have
>> been included and correctly covered.
>> /4. Confirm next meeting date (Tuesday, 26 April - may be used for
>> small team calls)/
>>
>> * Suggestion for next week's meeting to add a little bit of time
>> before and after (135 minutes total) to allow for each of the
>> three teams to have 45 minutes to finalise responses to
>> questions. This will require each of the sub-teams to have done
>> work on the mailing list prior to the call.
>> * Put this suggestion forward to the mailing list to request input.
>> * What needs to happen prior to the next meeting: few summaries
>> missing from each team - these will need to be submitted (staff
>> will send out reminders), consolidated summary documents will be
>> produced in the next few days for sub-team reviews, sub-teams to
>> agree on most relevant documents as well as other questions
>> identified, review summaries and pull out key points from these
>> most relevant documents. Next step would be to finalise work
>> plan. Ideally the WG will be able to complete this part of the
>> work shortly so it can move into the actual deliberations and
>> development of requirements.
>>
>> *Action item #8*: WG members to provide feedback on this proposed
>> approach within next 48 hours so that ample notification can be
>> provided in relation to next week's meeting.
>> <image001.gif>_______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160423/e97c2b45/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list