[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Jul 16 21:44:39 UTC 2018
Lets be fair...we have been objecting to this parallel process from the
get-go. As I said on the panel in Panama, there is a price to be paid
for not recognizing the reality of data protection law, and refusing to
move in time. We are now behind the proverbial 8-ball. That does not
mean we can pull off a miracle here.
Stephanie
On 2018-07-16 17:25, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
>
> Thanks Ayden.
>
> Keith & Council Leadrship - The revised Section J has been in for
> days and days now, including on our last call and including during the
> call for comments which ended Friday. A last minute attempt to get it
> out endangers the entire Charter. I hope that we can stick with the
> work of the Small Team which the DT had plenty of time to review and
> comment upon and not let this process get derailed at the last minute.
>
> Best to all,
>
> Paul
>
> *Paul D. McGrady *
>
> *Partner*
>
>
> Winston & Strawn LLP
> 35 W. Wacker Drive
> Chicago, IL 60601-9703
>
> D: +1 312-558-5963
>
> F: +1 312-558-5700
>
> Bio
> <http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> |
> VCard <http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email
> <mailto:pmcgrady at winston.com> | winston.com <http://www.winston.com>
>
> Winston & Strawn LLP
>
> *From:*Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 4:21 PM
> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>;
> pam.little at alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
> Thanks for your work here, Keith.
>
> I do not support the inclusion of Section J) in the EPDP's scope for
> two reasons.
>
> Firstly, this is because I do not believe it is possible to respond to
> the questions in Section J) until the questions in Part 3 have been
> answered.
>
> Part 3 asks important and relevant questions about data processing
> responsibilities. For example, k1) asks: "For which data processing
> activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the
> Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of
> processing?" How is it possible to come up with an ICANN 'access'
> policy, which we will be doing if we discuss it in J), before asking
> how ICANN determines the purpose and means of processing? How are we
> going to provide access under an ICANN policy to data that is not
> actually collected because of ICANN’s narrow mission and purpose?
>
> Secondly, we are aware that ICANN org is seeking "clarity" on issues
> related to access, and is engaging behind the scenes with Data
> Protection Authorities to receive their advice on how to proceed. This
> is a parallel process which ICANN org is not going to stop just
> because our EPDP is tackling the same questions; the Board told us
> much already on 24 June [1]. I think it is a more effective use of our
> time to not address this question until ICANN org has received and
> shared with us the DPA's advice, as their recommendations, as the
> enforcement bodies, are what will be followed anyway.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> [1] "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may
> more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements
> of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with
> the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is
> received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then
> it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going
> forward."
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-council-24jun18-en.pdf
>
> ICANN is saying: we want legal clarity on issues relevant to access,
> and if the DPA's clarifications go against the EPDP recommendations,
> we will follow the DPA's advice and impose it on you. In other words,
> ICANN org has created a parallel process which it is working on, we
> can do whatever we want in our EPDP, and then we can exchange notes
> and if we're not all aligned, ICANN org makes the decision.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>
> On 16 July 2018 5:57 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt at icann.org
> <mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Pam and Paul,
>
> Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam’s edits and
> responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul’s suggested
> language below for Section J.
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com
> <mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM
>
> *To:* Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com
> <mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>>; Epdp-dt at icann.org
> <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>; marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; Drazek, Keith
> <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
> Hi Pam,
>
> Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they
> eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and
> would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation.
>
> If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of
> reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think
> your proposed changes need some work.
>
> If we change to “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access”
> be clarified or defined…” I think that leads us down the wrong
> path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable
> access. I think we could ask “Can the obligation to provide
> “reasonable access” be further clarified and/or better defined
> through the implementation of a community-wide model…” We lose
> the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question
> in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer
> will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a
> discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes.
>
> So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can’t
> get that, we would be OK with:
>
> “Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be further
> clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a
> community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes
> into account at least the following elements:”
>
> Best to all,
>
> Paul
>
> *From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Pam Little
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM
>
> *To:* Epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>;
> marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
> Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
> Hi Keith
>
> Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft.
>
> Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to
> discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the
> interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to
> the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors
> or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not
> controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below:
>
> "J2) Can the obligation to provide “reasonable access” be
> clarified or definedreconciled with the objective of avoiding, to
> the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party
> access to registration data, , without the implementation of a
> community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes
> into account at least the following elements:"
>
> It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re
> fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my
> proposed change to try to make it more neutral.
>
> I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final
> draft:
>
> /"The EPDP Team shall respect the //timelines//and deliverables as
> outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP
> Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP
> Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps
> and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP
> as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP
> Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant
> updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a
> timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why
> the work plan needed adjustment." /
>
> The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is
> the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three
> deliverables?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Pam
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt at icann.org
> <mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>>
>
> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08
>
> To:Epdp-dt at icann.org <Epdp-dt at icann.org
> <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>>; marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
>
> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
> Hello again everyone….
>
> Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope
> section for your review and our vote on the 19^th .
>
> I have attached the redline version (against the version
> circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version.
>
> Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all
> parties.
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
> *From:* Drazek, Keith
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM
>
> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
>
> *Cc:* Epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>;
> marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
> Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the
> gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
> On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt
> <epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached
> is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
>
> I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and
> did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has
> reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July
> Council meeting.
>
> Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
>
> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits
> CLEAN.docx>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Epdp-dt mailing list
>
> Epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential.
> If this message has been received in error, please delete it
> without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended
> to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this
> message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice
> contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be
> used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under
> applicable tax laws and regulations.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Epdp-dt mailing list
> Epdp-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180716/831cbc40/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180716/831cbc40/image001-0001.jpg>
More information about the Epdp-dt
mailing list