[council] Global Public Interest Framework Webinar

Fri Sep 6 06:17:09 UTC 2019

Hi Pam,

>    1. Timing of the webinar: Could staff please confirm whether there
>    will only be one webinar scheduled for Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 15:00
>    UTC and only community leaders are invited to such webinar. If so, it seems
>    odd that a webinar on Global Public Interest Framework is scheduled at
>    a time that disadvantages those from the APAC time zones. I would urge
>    ICANN org to consider hosting two webinars (one of which at a time
>    slot that is APAC region friendly) with both open to all community members.
>
>
> I agree that there should be a second webinar with a friendlier time slot
for those in APAC.

 Best,

Rafik
------------------------------------------------------------------

> Sender:Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com>
> Sent At:2019 Sep. 6 (Fri.) 14:33
> Recipient:"Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> Cc:gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>; council at gnso.icann.org <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject:Re: [council] FW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP
> Phase 1 Recommendations
>
> I guess it is the best time to highlight the subject! Thank you for
> sharing Marika.
>
> Best,
>
> Elsa
> —
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> wrote:
> Thanks Marika!
>
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> In light of Elsa’s comments, you may be particularly interested in the
> following announcement from the Leadership Digest:
>
>
>
> *NEW: **Global Public Interest Framework Webinar*
>
> *Executive: *Sally Costerton, Senior Adviser to President and Senior Vice
> President, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>
>
>
> *FOR: *All Community Leaders
>
>
>
> *INFORMATION SHARING*
>
> You are invited to attend a webinar to learn more about one of the ICANN
> Board’s operational priorities: the public interest.
>
>
>
> The global public interest is central to many of ICANN’s primary
> governance documents, and the ICANN Board hopes to play a role in
> facilitating a bottom-up, community-driven process to develop a framework
> as a toolkit for the ICANN community to consider the global public
> interest. These considerations would not change the process by which
> decisions are made but could instead serve as tools for the community to
> reinforce the commitment to the public interest and to demonstrate how
> specific recommendations, advice, and public comments are in the global
> public interest. This includes the ICANN community guiding the ICANN Board
> about the public interest determination the latter must make in its
> decisions.
>
>
>
> To learn more about the framework, please read the *discussion paper
> [r20.rs6.net]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001kzb9OADNNHL9gpb3g69XAQHnC3pvWn1ZdEjwx6P-5FLh4INyH7fNdcMLqNjKW53PG9sEOJmq4wMupmI3jvMwoiFQxhaIOdqUS9UHmUeF2UzMoqLwnqEeASI9qPFMfuwCCPfbp62aDh02HDcJ2bCaU9bEdDAy9cRmm0AjB0mL3gj2BOVlPGAcFDGubBN1cxx3SHJ1RAuFpmKS7k91c33piISkNz3dPxxC08LSP-5FzTdqYp6Fu5GKN0k5Ple34x71IYyOqPzZSF-2D7OTtE-5Flr9Gp1cb-5FsobdckJFMazulsj9TKDbt2zkxDfCvGOVOhEhVNtoJxOBFJd9EEkBMF6MJdMET4C8HeCkAGwJ5p8e9Ub8e5E0FCHhZXNLZsZRzjTMlm-5FJpO3GHzrF-2DDQdkpnoOj5YCVekw3knuDg3wr-26c-3DQ32d53pCN7DAodEKiM9X9QVauW2KT-2DX6yqH5-5Fl62sT2yRPv4iJ97iA-3D-3D-26ch-3Dmt3T77XbBOd1q7BRWytgTl-5FRd5OeSCXQKZgUPoUuyigrTCTyi1hZAQ-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=cjElX0m-adnDrCPnbNKPvZI4TYkwSpeWW8YlsKWx4ZU&s=JmBXhzYlzZTjojpJR0G4jcV2CRfRvpWSPmbqvDzwa-s&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> The *Global Public Interest Framework Webinar *has been scheduled for *Tuesday,
> 17 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC*.
>
>
>
> To join the webinar, please visit *https://icann.zoom.us/j/288558444
> <https://icann.zoom.us/j/288558444>*
>
> *Zoom call details*
>
> Meeting ID: 288 558 444
>
> Find your local number [r20.rs6.net]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001kzb9OADNNHL9gpb3g69XAQHnC3pvWn1ZdEjwx6P-5FLh4INyH7fNdcMLqNjKW53PG9YaIad-2DORLSdZVs4BuAajTvjVnpGn2JMYMUd7qnvjEOCECgxE1apVXJl-2DifJIpUSKHyh-5FS7wZRlmxd95njoiJEQ-3D-3D-26c-3DQ32d53pCN7DAodEKiM9X9QVauW2KT-2DX6yqH5-5Fl62sT2yRPv4iJ97iA-3D-3D-26ch-3Dmt3T77XbBOd1q7BRWytgTl-5FRd5OeSCXQKZgUPoUuyigrTCTyi1hZAQ-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=cjElX0m-adnDrCPnbNKPvZI4TYkwSpeWW8YlsKWx4ZU&s=0PN56jNvasdgyc_Ar9eZi18X-YF1FafcDF9kL2lrjLc&e=>
>
> Time zone converter [r20.rs6.net]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001kzb9OADNNHL9gpb3g69XAQHnC3pvWn1ZdEjwx6P-5FLh4INyH7fNdcMLqNjKW53PG9iehrznCs4oIPV6P0Wuq9eRe3tVnU7qGJxeopkepkZTLP5VXRuf-5FHTpdWQGaHqKwlPw9ATPO5jirqHRWaIsgXFTM3ArslqAtDeMRkpNXS8HGxSbLKPx7Qd7nU-5Ffsh4W-2DAYAtbW6w-5FPdyGaYrndOVrVc8waBs7keL9xHqy0eIJqwzRDDxlNIwxUT8Dka6O0nuXdpM4i4HubaL9fEizjUVh3sl9HGqv-2DlCXGiApihtFL4BrUy-5F6J4mbcmPO1LJJrqlx-26c-3DQ32d53pCN7DAodEKiM9X9QVauW2KT-2DX6yqH5-5Fl62sT2yRPv4iJ97iA-3D-3D-26ch-3Dmt3T77XbBOd1q7BRWytgTl-5FRd5OeSCXQKZgUPoUuyigrTCTyi1hZAQ-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=cjElX0m-adnDrCPnbNKPvZI4TYkwSpeWW8YlsKWx4ZU&s=xWp3G4I-ZKlRvoGiknsx39htdkTI-PZ3UatfckXt4bY&e=>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Elsa S <
> elsa.saade at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:30
> *To: *"Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "council at gnso.icann.org"
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] FW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on
> EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
> Hi Keith and all,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the edits. I apologize that I haven't had the chance to
> incorporate this into the document in a new redlined version, but here is
> my suggested language about Global Public Interest, I'd be happy to review
> any amendments:
>
>
>
> We are aware that one of ICANN's core values is to ascertain the global
> public interest through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development
> processes (1.2(b)(ii) of ICANN's bylaws). However, as the term Global
> Public Interest is not in the bylaw language for PDPs such as in Section
> 9a of Annex A of the GNSO Policy Development Process, whereby: "Any PDP
> Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by
> the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the
> Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN
> community or ICANN" and given that the board has invoked global public
> interest (or public interest) a number of times in its resolution as the
> basis of its decision regarding the EPDP phase 1 policy recommendations,
> the council is concerned with the use of the terms, particularly "Global
> Public Interest", in the board's letter to the council on EPDP Phase 1.
> It is important that when invoking public interest generally, that the
> Board be specific about the material effect that the recommendation has on
> public interest. Invoking GAC advice is not on its own sufficient. It is
> also important that when the term Global Public Interest is used, there
> should be a rationale as to why it is being used instead of the PDP bylaw
> language. The council is generally concerned about the process that the
> Board has used to assess the effect of the recommendations on global public
> interest and would be happy to have a bigger conversation on the issue
> going forward.
>
>
>
> Happy to follow up,
>
>
>
> Elsa
>
> --
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:21 AM Drazek, Keith via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Final reminder on this letter. We will send at 2000 UTC.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Drazek,
> Keith via council
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:48 PM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN
> Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Thanks to Darcy, Marie and Tatiana for their continued input on this
> letter.
>
>
> I have incorporated most of the suggested edits and added the SG/C
> information we discussed on 22 August and mentioned below.
>
>
>
> Attached are clean and redlined versions for your review.
>
>
>
> Please look these over and send me any final comments by this Friday at
> 2000 UTC. We need to wrap this up and get it sent.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:16 PM
> *To:* Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
> *Cc:* Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>; Michele Neylon -
> Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>;
> council at gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN
> Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> during the call, it was agreed that in the bullet point two we could add
> which constituencies/SGs supported which position - maybe as a footnote?
> I don't have any language suggested because I wanted to ask Terri or
> Nathalie for help to get the "headcount" in the footnote right so I won't
> make any mistakes. Would this be possible? If there are any alternative
> suggestions to the footnote, I can propose the text, of course.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Tanya
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 19:06, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Following from Darcy’s mail below, please find the suggested amendments
> from the BC in the attached.
>
> Best to all,
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Darcy
> Southwell
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:08 PM
> *To:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>; Drazek, Keith
> <kdrazek at verisign.com>; council at gnso.icann.org
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP
> Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
> In follow up to my email below and today's Council discussion, please find
> my proposed edits to section 2 attached.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13 AM Darcy Southwell <
> darcy.southwell at endurance.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks, all, for preparing this.  I’m struggling a bit with section 2.  I
> agree we’ve characterized Council’s position accurately in section 2.
> But the rest seems confusing.  Did we already provide the Board with the
> written explanation of what was discussed in Marrakech?  If not, we should
> consider explaining that it’s provided now and then be more specific in our
> ask to the Board.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
>
>
> *From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Michele
> Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>
> *Date: *Friday, August 16, 2019 at 8:35 AM
> *To: *Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP
> Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
> Keith and Co
>
>
> Thanks for your work on this. I think it captures pretty accurately where
> we are at
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com/ [blacknight.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=BiCA-MqPKAxfFcwdr_NFkzhPPGD3yVH8IOyO7oe1aHs&e=>
>
> https://blacknight.blog/ [blacknight.blog]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=cdaaG-QhNEPYck-UdxGw-4OlN40DDWDbJ57364KKeaE&e=>
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ [michele.blog]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=rXcYORg695r_eFAtzJqTsp4C2RWOqMXQBF7PVmrM_Oc&e=>
>
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ [ceo.hosting]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=1izX5j1VZBCJQnbhlF2ncIiyiPUr6zQgnHM4XtV90ro&e=>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,
> Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
> *From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek,
> Keith via council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Reply to: *Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> *Date: *Thursday 15 August 2019 at 17:59
> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP
> Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> In preparation for our 22 August GNSO Council meeting, and further Council
> discussion on this topic, I am attaching an updated draft letter for your
> review.
>
>
>
> We have attempted to incorporate everyone’s comments and expressed views
> in this draft.
>
>
>
> To summarize, the goal of this letter is to:
>
>
>
>    1. Ensure the Council is proceeding as expected under Annex A-1
>    Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws.
>    2. Create a record of the Council-Board engagement in Marrakech.
>    3. Advise the Board of the Council’s current thinking around
>    Recommendation #1, Purpose 2 and Recommendation #12.
>    4. Seek further input from the Board, and ideally confirm a common
>    understanding or more clearly understand any difference of opinion.
>    5. Ensure that the Council is setting good precedent in terms of how
>    we engage in this kind of situation.
>
>
>
> In response to comments from Marie and Flip, we have added language that
> acknowledges a difference of opinion among Councilors on the subject of Rec
> #12 and the deletion of data.
>
>
>
> Please review and provide any comments to the list. We will also discuss
> next week. Let me know if I missed anything.
>
>
>
> Thanks to all and I appreciate your patience on this one.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rubens
> Kuhl
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:08 PM
> *To:* Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN
> Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Em 30 de jul de 2019, à(s) 10:14:000, Flip Petillion <
> fpetillion at petillion.law> escreveu:
>
>
>
> Rubens,
>
>
>
> I share the feeling that it is uncommon to have a substantive discussion
> within the Council. However, that is exactly what the Bylaws mandate us to
> do within the atypical framework of expedited PDPs. Doesn’t the proposed
> one pager attached to the draft letter also address substance?
>
>
>
> I don't think the bylaws mandate who specifically does that. It's a
> substantive discussion, but in the same way we ask WGs to take them, we
> can ask the RegData EPDP WG to answer the substance. If we engage ourselves
> in a discussion where we first delegated authority to a WG, we would be
> disenfranchising them.
>
>
>
> BTW, Expedited PDPs only differ from Standard PDPs by not having an Issue
> Report to frame discussions. So everything we does here is a precedent for
> any future PDP, being an EPDP or not.
>
>
>
> As to your second comment, I think we owe it to the community to provide
> the Board with recommendations and reasoning that is legally sound. If
> certain aspects of privacy have been previously overlooked, now seems the
> time to correct them.
>
>
>
>
>
> IPC can send Board, PDP or anyone else any communication they see fit at
> any time. But the discussion here is not that, it's only the Board
> rationale for not approving the PDP recommendation.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Flip
>
>
>
> Flip Petillion
>
> fpetillion at petillion.law
>
> +32484652653
>
> www.petillion.law [petillion.law]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=CurIlNDiMa7OqiF3WiQYgRKa9eTAY1Lp_BC5xQ5X4v0&e=>
>
>
>
> <image001.png> [petillion.law]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=CurIlNDiMa7OqiF3WiQYgRKa9eTAY1Lp_BC5xQ5X4v0&e=>
>
>
>
>   Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 30 July 2019 at 13:22
> *To: *Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
> *Cc: *Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP
> Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
>
>
> Flip,
>
>
>
> I find strange we are having a substantive discussion on the topic within
> the Council. I believe our approach to board denials of PDP recommendation
> should be to ask the PDP WG what clarifications or positions they have, and
> relay them to the board. IPC is represented in the PDP so the same content
> you posted here could be used there while formulating the response,
> whatever that response would look like.
>
>
>
> And still on process grounds, it's clear that the board rationale for not
> approving part of Rec. 12 is different from the IPC rationale you relayed
> to the Council. But the rationale that needs to be answered to is the Board
> one, because they've made the decision to not fully approve rec. 12. So
> while it's interesting to know the overall IPC position on the matter, the
> topic at hand is the Board decision.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Jul 2019, at 06:54, Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your questions and for the opportunity to clarify our
> position. I understand your questions address the substance of the
> recommendations and not the GNSO Council’s remit within the Board
> Approval Process.
>
>
>
>    1. Regarding your first question:
>
>
>
> You are correct that the ‘Organisation’ field pertains to information of
> legal entities and thus should not be subject to GDPR principles (and thus
> should not be deleted or even redacted). However, this is not treated as
> such in the Final Report. To avoid that we enter into circular discussions,
> we started from the premise in the Final Report (and the draft rationale
> for rec. #12) that the GDPR could apply to the ‘Organisation’ field. Our
> point is that, in such a case, the practices of both disclosing AND
> deleting data are subject to GDPR according to article 4 (2). ,The deletion
> of previously provided data can likewise not occur without a solid purpose,
> legal basis and safeguards.
>
>
>
>    1. Regarding your second question:
>
>
>
> (i) You are correct that the GDPR requires consent to be informed,
> affirmative and freely given. However, active opt-in consent is only
> required when relying on consent as a legal basis (art. 6.1.a). The Final
> Report and the guidance of the EU Authorities and DPAs have established
> that, depending on the purpose, the performance of the registration
> contract (art. 6.1.b) and legitimate interest (art. 6.1.f) are the valid
> legal bases. For the latter, an opt-out mechanism or redaction mechanism
> can be sufficient to shift the balance in favour of the interested party (
> cfr. Article 29 WP Guidance on Legitimate Interest) and active opt-in
> consent is not required.
>
>
>
> (ii) If you were to rely on consent as a legal basis, normally (and
> ideally) consent is obtained at the time of collection of the personal data
> (i.e. the registration of the domain name). It is at this point in time
> that the data subject (registrant) is properly informed of the processing
> activities and is engaged in providing the necessary information related to
> the purpose and legal bases (i.e., performance of the registration
> agreement). Practice has shown that there are a lot of problems with
> obtaining consent after the fact (i.e., during the performance of the
> registration agreement). Quite often data subjects cannot be contacted, are
> confused about the nature of the opt-in communication, are simply not
> interested, etc. Accordingly, the requirement of an active opt-in consent
> on the basis of a ‘review request’ to existing registrants unnecessarily
> risks losing valid organisation information on a wide scale.
>
>
>
> I hope this sufficiently answers your questions and clarifies the position
> of the IPC on this matter.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Flip
>
>
>
>
>
> Flip Petillion
>
> fpetillion at petillion.law
>
> +32484652653
>
> www.petillion.law [petillion.law]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=CurIlNDiMa7OqiF3WiQYgRKa9eTAY1Lp_BC5xQ5X4v0&e=>
>
>
>
> <image001.png> [petillion.law]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=CurIlNDiMa7OqiF3WiQYgRKa9eTAY1Lp_BC5xQ5X4v0&e=>
>
>
>
>   Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> *Reply to: *Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 30 July 2019 at 00:41
> *To: *Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
> *Cc: *Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>, Darcy Southwell <
> darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>,
> "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP
> Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
> Hi Flip,
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing this input from the IPC.
>
>
>
> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but since data that does not pertain
> to natural persons is beyond the scope of the GDPR, I do not understand how
> you can make the claim that article 4 (2) of the GDPR does not allow for
> the organisation field to be deleted. Could you please clarify? Thanks.
>
>
>
> I am also concerned that what you describe below - "Practice has shown
> that data subjects are generally reluctant to take active steps after their
> data has been collected to provide active opt-in consent (cfr. opt-in
> emails)" - sounds like a proposal for not obtaining consent that is valid
> under the GDPR, which I understand requires consent to be freely given.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Ayden
>
>
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>
> On Monday, 29 July 2019 18:29, Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Keith,
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> The IPC *shares the Board’s concern* that the option to *delete* the
> Organisation fields contents as a result of a refusal or failure to respond
> by the registrant upon a ‘review request’ by the registrar, *risks
> resulting in a* *wide scale loss* of crucial information about the
> registrant's identity.
>
>
>
> While the IPC acknowledges that Recommendation #12 achieved consensus
> support in the EPDP Team’s Phase 1 Final Report, we agree with the Board
> that the “or delete the field contents” part of recommendation #12 2) b) is
> not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.
>
>
>
> We therefore do not agree that the recommendation should be resubmitted as
> is, and also not together with the presented rationale in the draft letter
> to the Board.
>
>
>
> Irrespective of the debate as to whether the organisation
> field may contain personal data or not, the issues considered in
> the current rationale and the concerns of the Board can both be met by
> redacting the organisation data in case of an opt-out (or lack of active
> opt-in) instead of deleting.
>
> · The concept of ‘privacy by default/design’ in the GDPR does not
> automatically necessitate the implementation of an opt-in mechanism
> (especially considering the legitimate interests attached to the
> transparency of organisation information online);
>
> · The deletion/erasure by a controller of previously provided
> personal data is also considered ‘processing’ (article 4 (2) GDPR), for
> which the controller must determine a purpose and proper legal basis. As a
> result, a registrar cannot simply delete important information provided by
> the registrant unless (i) the registrant has requested the erasure of the
> ‘Organisation’ field by exercising his right to erasure (this right must be
> actively exercised and cannot be inferred), (ii) the retention of the
> ‘Organisation’ field is no longer necessary for the purposes of processing
> the domain name registration data (Recommendation #15 implies that the
> retention period of the data elements would at the minimum be the ‘life of
> the registration’), or (iii) the registrar can justify the deletion on
> the basis of another valid legal basis (such as the consent of the
> registrant).
>
>
>
> Practice has shown that data subjects are generally reluctant to take
> active steps after their data has been collected to provide active opt-in
> consent (cfr. opt-in emails). Together with the expected difficulties in
> contacting the registrants and verifying their (lack of) consent on a wide
> scale, the IPC believes (in accordance with the Board Statement) that this
> would pose a serious and unnecessary risk to lose important registrant
> information.
>
>
>
> Procedurally, we fail to see the use of the checks and balances
> incorporated in the ‘Board Approval Process’ of Annex A-1 Section 6 of the
> Bylaws if it would be outside the GNSO Council’s remit to allow a
> modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation delivered by the EPDP
> Team. Section 6 of Annex A-1 of the Bylaws specifically provides:
>
> *“At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council
> shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that
> conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an
> explanation for the then-current recommendation.”*
>
>
>
> The IPC therefore believes it is in the GNSO Council’s remit to consult
> with the Board and modify a Consensus Policy Recommendation if such
> modification alleviates concerns raised in the Board Statement and is in
> the best interest of the ICANN community and ICANN.
>
>
>
> In accordance with the concern raised in the Board Statement, the IPC
> therefore believes that the “or delete the field contents” part (deletion
> option) of Recommendation #12 2) b) should be deleted.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Flip
>
>
>
> Flip Petillion
>
> fpetillion at petillion.law
>
> +32484652653
>
> www.petillion.law [petillion.law]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=CurIlNDiMa7OqiF3WiQYgRKa9eTAY1Lp_BC5xQ5X4v0&e=>
>
>
>
> <image002.png> [petillion.law]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=CurIlNDiMa7OqiF3WiQYgRKa9eTAY1Lp_BC5xQ5X4v0&e=>
>
>
>
>   Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
> *Date: *Monday, 29 July 2019 at 21:41
> *To: *Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>, Darcy Southwell <
> darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
> *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "council at gnso.icann.org"
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP
> Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
> Dear Keith,
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Due to the vacation period, we will be able to send in the IPC comments
> later today or tomorrow morning my time.
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Flip
>
>
>
>
>
> Flip Petillion
>
> fpetillion at petillion.law
>
> +32484652653
>
> www.petillion.law [petillion.law]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=CurIlNDiMa7OqiF3WiQYgRKa9eTAY1Lp_BC5xQ5X4v0&e=>
>
>
>
> <image003.png> [petillion.law]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=-6JVq2SYiPa62xx1XlkQY0CtRr1yYddVjrrd_zNbQXY&s=CurIlNDiMa7OqiF3WiQYgRKa9eTAY1Lp_BC5xQ5X4v0&e=>
>
>
>
>   Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Maxim
> Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 18:53
> *To: *Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
> *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "council at gnso.icann.org"
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP
> Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
>  We support the current draft of the letter and comments of Darcy.
>
>
>
> Also I'd like to underline , that the modification of the recommendations
> is for GNSO Council, not for the Board
>
>  ,and that doing micro management of PDPs is not in the GNSO Council's
> role.
>
>
>
>
>
> Maxim Alzoba
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 22:44 Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks you, Keith.
>
>
>
> The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the
> Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus
> recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to modifying
> Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option.  The Council should seek
> to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in Marrakech and resubmit
> the consensus recommendation to the Board for approval.  Therefore, RrSG
> supports the Council's letter to the Board as written regarding
> Recommendation 12.
>
>
>
> Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have been
> quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure Purpose 2 is
> drafted consistent with applicable laws.  In its Final Report, the EPDP
> Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during phase 2 of the
> EPDP.  In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed ICANN Org to
> engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis to perform the
> work.  That legal analysis must be completed before the EPDP Team can even
> begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2.  Further, it is not typical
> for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works on such specific
> tasks.  It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its leadership and
> coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work.  So far, the EPDP
> Team has prioritized the work related to the System for Standardized Access
> to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent with its Charter, and with the
> concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors.  At this point, the RrSG sees no
> reason for the Council to intervene to reprioritize the Purpose 2 work
> ahead of the chartered work.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Darcy
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during
> yesterday’s Council call.
>
>
>
> On your second point below, related to the Board’s treatment of
> Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council’s remit to
> suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy
> recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently delivered
> by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of Council to now hold
> the Board accountable for its decision to not accept Rec 12 in full, and to
> call for the Board to accept it following the clarification they requested.
>
>
>
> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with our
> respective SGs and Cs, but that’s my current view.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> *From:* Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM
>
> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org
>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on
> EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
>
>
>
> Hi Keith,
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing the draft. I’m afraid I haven’t been able to discuss
> this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial reading, the BC
> does have some concerns.
>
>
>
> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we have
> problems with the second. As you know from the comments we attached to
> Janis’ letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a clear instruction to
> reword this and replace the placeholder language; I understand that it’s
> not on the Team
> --
> --
>
> Elsa Saade
> Consultant
> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190906/b425f55d/attachment-0001.html>