[Gnso-epdp-team] EPDB Communication - small group meeting
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Dec 2 17:03:57 UTC 2018
Thank you very much sharing the thouts with us
Pls find attached my comments
On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:57 PM Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk> wrote:
> > On 2 Dec 2018, at 15:22, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:
> > Hi Everyone:
> > A “small” team met on Thursday to discuss communication with the
> European Data Protection Board (EDPB). We actually met in two small groups
> in order to accommodate everyone’s schedule. The discussion of each
> “smaller” group differed somewhat although there was a large area of
> intersection in thought and desired actions.
> > The agenda considered to issues: (1) whether and how we should
> communication to the EDPB generally, and after consideration of that, (2)
> what the content of a near-term communication might be.
> > As a preamble to the ICANN staff meeting notes (attached), here are the
> conclusions that I noted. Please provide corrections, edits or additions so
> that we all have the same understanding.
> > (1) We are not sure we need to or should communicate with the EDPB at
> this point. In any event, communications with the EDPB must be undertaken
> carefully and the current draft letter is not suitable for this purpose. We
> had intended to communicate with them as: (1) the EPDP Charter states that
> we “should’ (but not “must”) send the initial report to them; (2) we have
> been creating questions for possible EDPB review as part of our
> > (2) However, we noted the EDPB web page states, "The EDPB does not
> provide individual consultancy services. Please note that individuals or
> organisations with questions related to data protection law are advised to
> consult the website of the Supervisory Authority in the country where they
> are based.” Some of the call participants noted that, from personal
> experience, EDPB member have expressed displeasure at the receipt of
> questions from ICANN and another round of questions would result in a
> negative, rather than constructive, reaction. When I suggested that our
> (EPDP) questions could be differentiated from ICANN questions, it was
> reasonably pointed out that the EDPB would not be able, nor care to try to
> differentiate between ICANN org and our team.
> > (3) Therefore, the general agreement was that any communication to the
> EDPB should be fairly brief and restricted to conclusions of our team
> rather than in the form of questions. We might decide that we do not want
> to share the Initial Report with the EDPB. In that case, we should notify
> the GNSO Council of that intention in order to get their feedback and
> > (4) In the meantime, we will continue to draft / hone a letter to the
> EDPB as one way to determine if a reasonable, meaningful communication can
> be developed. Stephanie has undertaken an initial draft of that. Given that
> the EDPB more or less stated in their earlier missive to ICANN to “get on
> with it,” it was my opinion that our letter might state that we are doing
> that and provide a link to the initial report. This would provide the EDPB
> the opportunity to review the report if they wish and provide notice that
> our Final Report will be issued at a later date.
> > (5) During the second meeting, it was indicated that there are questions
> requiring answers that are on the critical path to finishing our work. For
> example, it is unclear whether the EDPB indication that third party data
> could be included in a domain registration so long as the third party was
> “notified" by the registered name holder still requires “consent" of that
> third party. It was also noted that the team does not have dispositive
> information on whether a registrar could rely without liability on a
> registered name holder’s indication of whether s/he was presenting the data
> of a legal or natural person. Answers to certain questions must still be
> pursued but the existing question set requires edits.
> > (6) Answers and advice should be pursued in two places.
> > (a) The team should redouble its efforts to secure independent legal
> advice. To expedite this, it was recommended that a firm already under
> contract to ICANN (WSGR in Brussels) be employed. Other possibilities would
> be welcomed but time is of the essence. This effort will start immediately.
> > (b) Consultation with Data Privacy Authorities should be pursued in
> lieu of the EDPB. It was suggested that the Belgium DPA be consulted as
> ICANN has an office there. Contacts with DPAs will be attempted through
> different channels. Thomas is working with one contact set.
> > To briefly recap, as a result of these recent team discussions we will:
> continue to work on an EDPB draft letter as a way of determining whether
> such a communication be made; review and edit questions requiring answers
> to inform our work, secure outside legal counsel, approach a DPA for
> consultation, report those plans to the GNSO Council.
> > Thank you to everyone that participated on the additional calls. Sorry
> for the long letter; I hope it was useful.
> > Best regards,
> > Kurt
> > <Small Teams on EDPB Letter (29 Nov 2018).docx>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> > Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Question to EPDP, kavouss.docx
Size: 19257 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team