[Gnso-epdp-legal] Notes and action items from EPDP Legal Committee Meeting - 30 January 2019

[Caitlin Tubergen]

Dear EPDP Legal Committee,

 

Kindly note that the deadline for editing the questions re: city field, data accuracy, and establishment is COB today, 1 Feb. 

 

Here is the link to the Google Doc.

 

Kurt plans to send the questions to Ruth tomorrow, Saturday, 2 Feb.  

 

Best regards,

 

Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

 

 

 

 

From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 11:04 AM
To: "gnso-epdp-legal at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-legal at icann.org>
Cc: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>
Subject: Notes and action items from EPDP Legal Committee Meeting - 30 January 2019

 

Dear EPDP Legal Committee,

 

Below, please find the notes and action items from today’s call. 

 

Also, we’d like to flag an action item from yesterday’s EPDP Team call: 

Legal committee to formulate question to obtain clarity for how the proposed additional “purpose” of ICANN Org research could/should be addressed. Via what means ICANN Org, as controller and even though it does not have the data, request data in a GDPR-compliant manner to undertake research.

 

Please feel free to discuss this over the list in advance of our next meeting.

 

Best regards,

 

Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

--

Action Items
LC to finalize questions to send to Legal Counsel by Friday, 1 Feb. Please refer to the Google Doc for edits.
City Field
Accuracy 
Establishment 
Kurt to reach out to Bird & Bird to inform them the LC would like to include their summary text within the Final Report.
Support Team to post Bird & Bird memos to wiki. (completed)
 

 

EPDP Legal Committee Meeting Agenda

Wednesday, 30 January 2019

 

1.         Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)

 

2.         Discussion of communication from Legal Counsel

 

Agenda Feedback: 

 
Concerned feedback from B&B may not be as thorough as it should be - specifically, not just an RNH self-declares as a legal vs. natural person, but whether if there is an established legal person as a registrant whether that includes publication of PII. Is it possible to get more information something we can do?
In the interim, the plenary team has dealt with the legal vs. natural issue - namely, the Team decided to maintain the Temp Spec and discuss this issue later in Phase 2. The response given by B&B seemed to support the Team's conclusion that it is a complicated issue, so while registrars may be able to mitigate liability, there is still liability.
If we think we should go back to them with additional questions, that is an option.
 

 

Final Report approach – proposed text for reporting conclusions to full EPDP Team

 

For the following questions previously posed to legal counsel, draft text is attached for your consideration. The text is designed to explain the legal guidance for the larger EPDP Team (and the ultimate readers of the Final Report). With this in mind, please review the attached text and come to the meeting with an eye toward quickly delivering a document to the plenary.

 

o          Legal vs. Natural
Team to review proposed language to see if it's OK for sharing with the plenary team.
"likely be liable" should be changed to "could be subject to liability"
Forward the response we received from Bird & Bird in its full form and ask the Team if it needs the summary. 
How far should we go in summarizing back to the group? The summary appears to leave the Temp Spec as it is.
Having the legal advice as a reference would be valuable even outside of this EPDP
Given the fact the Team has a lot of work to do, it would be helpful to provide key takeaways from the legal memo. 
Risk in summarizing legal memo - perhaps would be to ask Bird and Bird to summarize their advice that we could include in the Final Report. 
We may want to let Bird & Bird know that their summary emails will be included within the text of the Final Report. Let them know so that they can edit it if necessary.
 

o          Legal Bases (6(1)(b) vs. 6(1)(f))

 

o          Technical Contact

 

3.         Discussion of additional questions for Legal Counsel

 

For the following questions, 

 

•          Redaction of City Field
During the last meeting, Thomas noted that everyone agrees city name is personal data, and the important question is - is there a legal basis? Accordingly, the posed question was bifurcated - is the city field personal data, and if so, is there a legal basis to publish?
Linkable information could be information that when combined with other information can be used to identify someone. The question should look at this. 
Take our list of unredacted data in the Final Report, add city field, and then ask if this would be personal data? 
The meaning of PII and personal data is not far apart in most jx.
If there is a legal basis to disclose to a third party, that may be different from publication. 
What are the risks of publishing or disclosing the city name, state/province, country name of the registered name holder? 
 

•          Accuracy under GDPR – how broad is the definition?

 

•          Establishment under GDPR
May need to first confirm if counsel believes there are indeed stable establishments. 
 

4.         Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Wednesday, 6 February 2019 at 14.00 UTC 

 

a.         Confirm action items

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-legal/attachments/20190201/462c8e54/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4621 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-legal/attachments/20190201/462c8e54/smime-0001.p7s>