[Gnso-epdp-legal] Reminder: action items from EPDP legal committee call
Emily Taylor
emily.taylor at oxil.co.uk
Wed Jan 2 11:27:06 UTC 2019
Hi Caitlin
Happy New Year to you and the EPDP support team.
Thank you for all your work during the break to summarise the public
comments, and prepare for the legal small group call.
Happy with the assignment, and look forward to today's call.
Best wishes
Emily
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 2:52 PM Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Happy New Year!
>
>
>
> Kind reminder of the action items from our last Legal Committee call.
>
>
>
> 1. Margie to draft conflict of interest language for this team to
> review by the end of the week.
> 2. Thomas to draft CCWG lessons learned, e.g., one law firm preferred,
> early intervention from Board liaisons preferred, for this team to review
> by the end of the week.
> 3. Berry to provide written update on the procurement process.
> 4. Caitlin to send initial question assignments to team members. (see
> below)
>
>
>
> As a reminder, please independently rewrite the below questions to legal
> counsel per the following assignments in preparation for our meeting on *Wednesday,
> 2 January*:
>
>
>
> *Question 1*: *Hadia, Emily, Leon*
>
> The EPDP Team also took note of a related footnote which states, “[if
> contact details for persons other than the RNH are provided] it should be
> ensured that the individual concerned is informed”. The EPDP Team discussed
> whether this note implies that it is sufficient for the Registered Name
> Holder (RNH) to inform the individual it has designated as the technical
> contact, or whether the registrar may have the additional legal obligations
> to obtain consent. The EPDP Team agreed to request further clarification
> from the EDPB on this point. (p. 33 of Initial Report)
>
>
>
> *Question 2: **Laureen, Kristina, Margie*
>
> (For the EDPB) If registrars allow registrants to self-identify at the
> time as a natural or legal person, who will be held liable if the
> registrant incorrectly self-identifies and personal information is publicly
> displayed? Apart from self-identification, and educational materials to
> inform the registrant, are there any other ways in which risk of liability
> could be mitigated by registrars? (p. 53 of Initial Report)
>
>
>
> *Question 3: **Thomas, Diane, Tatiana*
>
> As noted below, the EPDP Team disagreed about the application of Art.
> 6(1)b, namely, does the reference ‘to which the data subject is party’
> limit the use of this lawful basis to only those entities that have a
> direct contractual relationship with the Registered Name Holder? Similarly,
> in relation to Art. 6(1)(b), questions arose regarding how to apply
> “necessary for the performance of a contract”; specifically, does this
> clause solely relate to the registration and activation of a domain, or,
> alternatively, could related activities such as fighting DNS abuse also be
> considered necessary for the performance of a contract? The EPDP Team plans
> to put these questions forward to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
> to obtain further clarity in order to help inform its deliberations. (p. 57
> of the Initial Report)
>
>
>
> Our next meeting is on *Wednesday, 2 January* at 14:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika, Berry, and Caitlin
>
>
>
> *From: *Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM
> *To: *Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>, "Kapin, Laureen" <LKAPIN at ftc.gov>, "
> gnso-epdp-legal at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-legal at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-epdp-legal] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Legal Team,
> Meeting #1
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Following up on an action item from today’s call, we randomly assigned the
> draft EDPB questions to the Legal Team Members, except in cases where
> volunteers specifically came forward. Of course, if you would prefer to
> work on a different question, please let us know.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika, Berry, and Caitlin
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Question 1*
>
> *Team Members:* Hadia, Emily, Leon
>
> The EPDP Team also took note of a related footnote which states, “[if
> contact details for persons other than the RNH are provided] it should be
> ensured that the individual concerned is informed”. The EPDP Team discussed
> whether this note implies that it is sufficient for the Registered Name
> Holder (RNH) to inform the individual it has designated as the technical
> contact, or whether the registrar may have the additional legal obligations
> to obtain consent. The EPDP Team agreed to request further clarification
> from the EDPB on this point. (p. 33 of Initial Report)
>
>
>
> *Question 2*
>
> *Team Members: *Laureen, Kristina, Margie
>
> (For the EDPB) If registrars allow registrants to self-identify at the
> time as a natural or legal person, who will be held liable if the
> registrant incorrectly self-identifies and personal information is publicly
> displayed? Apart from self-identification, and educational materials to
> inform the registrant, are there any other ways in which risk of liability
> could be mitigated by registrars? (p. 53 of Initial Report)
>
>
>
> *Question 3*
>
> *Team Members: *Thomas, Diane, Tatiana
>
> As noted below, the EPDP Team disagreed about the application of Art.
> 6(1)b, namely, does the reference ‘to which the data subject is party’
> limit the use of this lawful basis to only those entities that have a
> direct contractual relationship with the Registered Name Holder? Similarly,
> in relation to Art. 6(1)(b), questions arose regarding how to apply
> “necessary for the performance of a contract”; specifically, does this
> clause solely relate to the registration and activation of a domain, or,
> alternatively, could related activities such as fighting DNS abuse also be
> considered necessary for the performance of a contract? The EPDP Team plans
> to put these questions forward to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
> to obtain further clarity in order to help inform its deliberations. (p. 57
> of the Initial Report)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-epdp-legal <gnso-epdp-legal-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:27 PM
> *To: *"Kapin, Laureen" <LKAPIN at ftc.gov>, "gnso-epdp-legal at icann.org" <
> gnso-epdp-legal at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-epdp-legal] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Legal Team,
> Meeting #1
>
>
>
> Hi Laureen:
>
>
>
> Thanks for your question.
>
>
>
> First note that the support team has set up an email address for our legal
> team: gnso-epdp-legal at icann.org
>
>
>
> To your question: we ran out of time during the meeting and so I did a
> poor job of explaining the different question sets.
>
>
>
> The first set of questions, the “EDPB questions” are the questions found
> in the initial report and so are the questions developed through the
> discussions of the EPDP team. Those are the questions that our group stated
> should be posed to an outside, independent resource. Those are the
> questions that we should re-form, if necessary.
>
>
>
> The second set of questions, of which there are two, represents the first
> attempt to take a portion of those three questions and reword them for
> outside counsel. There are placed in the appendix as a reference.
>
>
>
> Our task is to take the first three questions and have them answered.
>
>
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 7:13 AM, Kapin, Laureen <LKAPIN at ftc.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
>
>
> I need some clarity on which questions we are discussing because the
> appendix has *two* sets of questions. I thought we were asking for
> volunteers to tackle the questions to legal counsel (there are two) but
> then there were references to *three *questions (the EDPB questions).
> Before we sort out volunteers it would be helpful to get a common
> understanding of which questions we’re talking about. I’m interested in
> tackling question 1 to legal counsel. If we’re discussing the EDPB
> questions, then I’m interested in question 2.
>
>
>
>
>
> Laureen Kapin
>
> Counsel for International Consumer Protection
>
> Office of International Affairs
>
> Federal Trade Commission
>
> (202) 326-3237
>
> lkapin at ftc.gov
>
>
>
> *From:* Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2018 5:58 PM
> *To:* kurt at kjpritz.com; rafik.dammak at gmail.com; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; 'Margie Milam' <margiemilam at fb.com>; Plaut,
> Diane <Diane.Plaut at corsearch.com>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>;
> 'Tatiana Tropina' <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>; rosettek at amazon.com; Emily
> Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>; Kapin, Laureen <LKAPIN at ftc.gov>; 'Hadia
> Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi' <Hadia at tra.gov.eg>;
> Daniel.Halloran at icann.org; Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
> *Cc:* Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>; trang.nguyen at icann.org;
> Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Proposed Agenda - EPDP Legal Team, Meeting #1
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Please find attached the proposed agenda for the first EPDP Legal Team
> meeting. We will have a mailman list setup shortly for this group.
>
>
>
> Wednesday, 19 December 2018
>
> 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)
> 2. Confirm EPDP-Legal Team members and designate a Chair:
>
>
> - EPDP Leadership - Kurt, Rafik
> - Board - Leon
> - BC - Margie
> - IPC - Diane
> - ISPCP - Thomas
> - NCSG - Tatiana
> - RySG - Kristina
> - RrSG - Emily
> - GAC - Laureen
> - ALAC – Hadia
> - SSAC - TBD
> - Staff - Dan, Caitlin
>
>
> 1. Discuss Legal Team Process and Working Methods (Thomas and Leon to
> provide experiential lessons from their prior legal team work)
>
> a) How are questions raised to this group; what is the trigger?
>
> b) What is this group’s role (vis-à-vis the EPDP Team) regarding
> “reforming” the questions?
>
> c) Answering questions, when to use:
>
> 1. This group’s own expertise
>
> 2. ICANN inside or outside counsel
>
> 3. EPDP retained legal counsel
>
> d) What’s is this group’s responsibility for checking back with and
> reporting to the entire Team?
>
> e) Working methods: what can be done via email vs, when is a meeting
> required?
>
> f) Scheduling: meeting frequency, ad hoc meetings, etc.
>
> g) Working with provider: do we need an introductory letter?
>
> 1. Form EPDP Questions starting from:
>
> a) Questions for EDPB in Initial Report
>
> b) draft Statement of Work
>
> [see Appendix]
>
> 1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Wednesday 2
> January 2019 at 14.00 UTC
>
> a) Confirm action items
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> B
>
>
>
> Berry Cobb
>
> GNSO Policy Consultant
>
> @berrycobb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-legal mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-legal at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-legal
--
Emily Taylor
CEO, Oxford Information Labs
*MA (Cantab), Solicitor (non-practising), MBA, *
*A**ssociate Fellow, Chatham House; Editor, Journal of Cyber Policy*
Lincoln House, Pony Road, Oxford OX4 2RD | T: 01865 582885
E: emily.taylor at oxil.co.uk | D: 01865 582811 | M: +44 7540 049322
<http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/pgas/rcyb-cfp-2017>
<http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/pgas/rcyb-cfp-2017>
Registered office: Lincoln House, 4 Pony Road, Oxford OX4 2RD. Registered
in England and Wales No. 4520925. VAT No. 799526263
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-legal/attachments/20190102/45324e85/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-epdp-legal
mailing list