[council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps

Tatiana Tropina tatiana.tropina at gmail.com
Mon Mar 16 14:50:31 UTC 2020


Dear all,
I fully support Keith's proposal as a path forward.
I hope I am still within the deadline (dealing with the country on a
lockdown).
Warm regards,
Tatiana.


On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 23:33, Drazek, Keith via council <
council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> As a follow-up to Rafik’s 6 March email (below) and our brief discussion
> during yesterday’s Council meeting, I’d like to share my current thinking
> and propose a path forward. If anyone has views to share, please do so now;
> the EPDP Phase 2 Team needs our guidance in short order. I’ve done some
> additional homework since yesterday’s call, so I hope I’ve captured
> everything here accurately.
>
>
>
> 1.                 The issue of registrant data accuracy is an important
> topic that deserves full and thorough consideration, including its impact
> on GNSO policy, contracted party agreements, and other ICANN processes such
> as ARS. As such, it is not only a policy issue, and there are likely
> non-GDPR-specific factors that will need to be considered.
>
>
>
> 2.                 The EPDP Team Phase 1 Final Report Recommendation #4
> said, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy
> of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus
> policies shall not be affected by this policy.” The ICANN Board approved
> this recommendation without further guidance or comment.
>
>
>
> 3.                 There is not agreement within the EPDP on the meaning
> of “data accuracy” in the context of GDPR. There is disagreement over
> whether it is only from the perspective of the data subject or also third
> parties? There was a legal memo received during Phase 1 on the topic of
> data accuracy and a legal question was developed during Phase 2 to help
> clarify the meaning, but it has not been submitted.
>
>
>
> 4.                 The charter for the EPDP did not specify or identify
> the topic of data accuracy as within scope, but the EPDP Phase 1 final
> report included a reference to data accuracy in footnote #24. That footnote
> said: “The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to
> be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.” This
> footnote did not specify that such further consideration take place in
> Phase 2, but the issue was included in the Phase 2 work plan that was
> approved by the GNSO Council.
>
>
>
> 5.                 During Phase 1, the EPDP Team requested external legal
> counsel guidance on the topic of accuracy in the context of GDPR, and
> received the following summary answer: “In sum, because compliance with the
> Accuracy Principle is based on a reasonableness standard, ICANN and the
> relevant parties will be better placed to evaluate whether these procedures
> are sufficient. From our vantage point, as the procedures do require
> affirmative steps that will help confirm accuracy, unless there is reason
> to believe these are insufficient, we see no clear requirement to review
> them.”
>
>
>
> 6.                 There is not sufficient clarity at this time on how
> existing accuracy requirements have been impacted by GDPR. As such, in
> order to properly consider and scope further work on registrant data
> accuracy, more discussion is needed among interested/impacted parties,
> including ICANN Org.
>
>
>
> 7.                 The EPDP is scheduled to conclude its Phase 2 work in
> June with its deliberations on priority 2 items, of which accuracy is one,
> needing to complete by 24 March at the latest to be included in the Final
> Report. Furthermore,  and there is no FY21 budget assigned for its
> continuation beyond that time. Under these constraints (time, resources,
> complexity), our ability to reach a policy solution in a couple of months
> is highly unlikely if not impossible and could delay delivery of the Final
> Report on SSAD which has been identified by basically everyone as priority
> #1.
>
>
>
> In light of the above, my recommended path forward for the Council and
> EPDP is as follows:
>
>
>
> 1.                   Council acknowledge the importance and complexity of
> the topic, but also the time and resource constraints noted above.
>
> 2.                   Council will discuss and consider possible next
> steps, including establishing a small group/scoping team to establish a
> framework to address the issue of registrant data accuracy across
> policy/contracts/procedures.
>
> 3.                   Council to acknowledge the possible impact of the
> data accuracy issue in the context of SSAD implementation and RDDS, and
> recognize the need to prioritize accordingly.
>
> 4.                   Encourage the EPDP team to submit the pending legal
> memo to help inform the work of any future scoping team.
>
>
>
> I hope that strikes the right balance to ensure the work will be done,
> while giving the community space and time to approach the issue
> holistically and to carefully develop any needed policy recommendations.
>
>
>
> I shared this with Rafik and Pam and we are in agreement.
>
>
>
> We were asked to respond by Friday the 13th, but that doesn’t leave much
> time for feedback, so please respond by 11:59 UTC on Monday 16 March. This
> will allow us to deliver our reply to the EPDP Team prior to their Tuesday
> call.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rafik
> Dammak
> *Sent:* Friday, March 6, 2020 6:32 PM
> *To:* Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I am sending a request from EPDP team chair asking guidance from GNSO
> council regarding WHOIS accuracy. There was disagreement within the EPDP
> team if the topic is within scope or not. So we would like to get from
> council guidance regarding its expectations on WHOIS accuracy issue in
> phase 2 and if the EPDP team is expected to deliberate on it or not asap,
> taking into account the GNSO council and ICANN org ongoing correspondence
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-05dec19-en.pdf>
> on the matter.
>
>
>
> The EPDP team chair asked that GNSO council can provide guidance by Friday
> 13th march so that the EPDP team will have time to receive further guidance
> from the external legal council (if applicable). The time constraint can be
> also explained  that EPDP team is currently deliberating priority 2 topics
> during the initial report public comment period.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200316/7b3ed754/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list