[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Final version of the ALAC Advice regarding the EPDP

[Alan Greenberg]

I added that on specific advice that since we are not saying "require" we make it clear that there is a belief that if the board does not make a strong statement, it will not happen.

I completely agree that given the time, effort and resources, we should not be at this place now. But we are (in the views of those who have sat through all those hours).

Alan

At 15/04/2019 04:26 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

I have a major issue with that last sentence. The tone of it basically goes straight back to the "require" language. We are saying that the decisions made have not been fully informed -- well, after all those hours of consideration and all the money spent, more information is probably not the problem.

Although much of this statement does hinge around "information" -- new legal, studies, etc.-- I don't think it is necessary to throw in a final swat at the GNSO. It really won't help matters or get anyone further ahead.

Marita
On 4/15/2019 10:01 AM, Sebastien Bachollet wrote:
Other questions
Not sure about this
GDPR, in rough terms, only applies to entities within the European Economic Area (EEA) and to entities outside of the targeting individuals resident within the EU.
Maybe
GDPR, in rough terms, only applies to entities within the European Economic Area (EEA) and to entities outside THAT ARE (of the) targeting individuals resident within the EU.
?????

And 3 that??
Last sentence
But it is critical that that, if the Board believes, as the ALAC does, that the EPDP decisions must take all applicable issues into consideration and make fully informed decisions, the Board needs to ensure that this is fully understood by the GNSO and EPDP.

Thanks
SeB

Le 15 avr. 2019 à 08:19, Bastiaan Goslings < bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net<mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>> a écrit :

Thanks for this - while I personally cannot support the ratification of the draft advice with a ‘yes’, it does look a lot better than earlier versions. For now my intention is to ‘abstain’.


In terms of wording/grammar:

- On page 2, 'At the time the report was issued, there was also an outstanding question to the EPDP legal counsel whether ICANN’s presence in the EU imply that the GDPR apply ALL personal data regardless of location’ (et; )

I think it should be ‘implies’ instead of ‘imply’, ‘applies’ in stead of ‘apply’, and there needs to be a ’to’ after the ‘applies’.


- On page 3, with regard to the advice itself, 'The ALAC advises the Board to request that the issue of legal/natural differentiation be discussed during the EPDP Phase 2 explicitly considering the competing needs of those using the data for cyber-security and other legitimate purposes.'

>From the sentence it is not clear (to me) what the ‘competing’ refers to.


- On page 4, part of the concluding remarks, 'The ALAC believes that the issues being raised here have not received sufficient full discussion’.

‘Received sufficient full discussion’ sounds strange to me. Maybe change into ‘The ALAC believes that the issues being raised here have not been sufficiently discussed’ ?


Anyway, thanks again, and with regards
Bastiaan



***  Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer  ***




On 15 Apr 2019, at 08:03, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > wrote:

The errors caught by Marita and Sebastien are fixed in the attached version.

Alan

At 14/04/2019 04:23 PM, Sebastien Bachollet wrote:
And if you fix that you may withdraw one of the two issues (the word).
SeB

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 14 avr. 2019 à 20:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > a écrit :

Thanks for catching that. Will fix. Alan
--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On April 14, 2019 1:44:48 PM EDT, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> wrote:

One of the items still says require...

"The ALAC advises the Board require that the issue of Thick WHOIS issue be discussed during the EPDP Phase 2 in light of the new legal opinion.
Geographic Differentiation"

Marita
On 4/14/2019 3:22 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

Attached is the final version being voted on by the ALAC.



It is largely unchanged with the exception of "require"
being changed


back t "request" and an explanatory paragraph at the end.
This was


done after consultation to ensure that we were not perceived as not


understanding Board restrictions and to not give an "easy"
way of


rejected the advice ("we don't have that power").



Alan



_______________________________________________


CPWG mailing list


CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>




https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg




_______________________________________________


GTLD-WG mailing list



GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>





https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg




Working Group direct URL:


https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
<Advice-DRAFT-v06-clean.pdf><Advice-DRAFT-v06-redline.pdf>_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg




_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190415/7c5aed36/attachment-0001.html>