[Gnso-epdp-team] Please review - action items and outstanding items

Thu Nov 1 10:04:41 UTC 2018

Hi,

Below are some comments from the NCSG on the outputs of Small Teams 1 and 2, and attached are proposed redline changes to output documents.

Action Item #2 (legal v. natural persons):

h5)

The NCSG doesn’t concede that risks involved can be minimized through education. Educational resources may prove helpful, but the extent to which this might be true is not yet evident. Should any contracted parties elect to differentiate between legal and natural persons in how their data is processed, we believe educational resources should be made available to RNHs.

Additionally, the NCSG has proposed some modification to the language under h5, in order to explain the main risk involved with differentiation between legal and natural persons more clearly.

Proposed Preliminary Policy Recommendations for inclusion in the Initial Report

Although this is still in the attached document, the NCSG is proposing deletion of the third bullet, as well as the two sub-bullets under it. This section presumes that the EPDP Team will require registrars to distinguish between legal and natural persons, which the NCSG does not believe is going to be a consensus recommendation of the EPDP Team.

Action Item #3 (Geographic Basis):

The NCSG draft is a follow-up to the one provided by the RySG, with which the NCSG is largely in agreement with, but have made a few additional proposed amendments.

A discussion over email among Small Team 2 members proposed that there is no need to identify which SOs/ACs/GNSO SGs and/or Constituencies need to be identified as being in support or opposition of any of the recommendations, when publication of the output of Small Team 2 is included in the EPDP Team’s initial report. The NCSG believes, for the purpose of the initial report, that this might serve as a distraction from the actual policy issue under question, and would prefer that the focus be on substance, rather than which group is advocating which position. We have therefore deleted all references to the groups in the attached draft.

The NCSG also agrees with the RySG that the last two paragraphs in the attached document, including the request for ICANN to explore the feasibility of a mechanism allowing geographic differentiation be removed. In the event that they are not, the NCSG has inserted additional text in the last paragraph, which we believe provides additional insight from the EWG on limitations regarding a potential, and so far theoretical, rules engine to serve the purpose of geographic differentiation.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 29, 2018, at 11:49 PM, Matt Serlin <matt at brandsight.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Below are RrSG comments/feedback on each of the requested action items due today:
>
> Action Item #2 (legal v. natural persons) – based on the discussions we had in Barcelona, it was our understanding this language was going to continue to be refined due to the many objections raised to it within the larger group. While we do not object to research being done to get additional insights, it’s not clear what specifics we will be soliciting, what the timing of that research will be or ultimately what we will do once we receive that research. There was discussion about further defining the “organization name” field and we believe that should continue to be developed and discussed amongst the group. We also continue to be concerned about the applicability of this distinction to currently registered domain names and the feasibility of how this would be implemented by registrars.
>
> Action Item #3 (geographic basis) – we agree with the comments added into the working draft by Kristina and strongly support the comment on the last paragraph of the document by either being deleted or to insert Kristina’s text as noted.
>
> Best regards,
>
> RrSG ePDP representatives
>
> From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 7:52 AM
> To: EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Please review - action items and outstanding items
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please note an updated link for action item #3 as on the original link the redlines were not visible. Do also note that this version now includes the additional changes that Kristina referred to during the meeting.
>
> See https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1tamJeyaq4nC8HHQelSeln_BB8fnVlz9I/view?usp=sharing.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
> From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 1:29 PM
> To: EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Please review - action items and outstanding items
>
> Dear EPDP Team,
>
> Following this week’s EPDP Team meetings, please find below and attached the outstanding action items and related deadlines, outstanding charter questions (not yet discussed) and punch list of items in relation to the data elements workbooks. Please take note that Staff’s provision of an updated and comprehensive data matrix and updated Initial Report draft is dependent on timely delivery of input on the below items. If you believe anything is missing from the list below, please let us know.
>
> Thank you for all your support - safe travels home!
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
> ===================
>
> EPDP Team Action items ICANN63
>
> Action item #1 – CPH to confirm whether or not purpose A strikethrough language can be removed by Thursday 25 October. (COMPLETED – deletion of strikethrough language confirmed)
>
> Action item #2 - Each group (SG/C/AC) to express the group's views and/or proposed edits on small team #1 responses to charter questions and preliminary recommendations with the mailing list by Monday 29 October. (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U6POLQhFNGu1Bo1k0rCluiaVZ27-OKIPpU8K8N1drdg/edit?usp=sharing).
>
> Action item #3 - Each group (SG/C/AC) to express the group's views and/or proposed edits on the revised responses of the small team #2 charter question responses with the mailing list by Monday 29 October. (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1tamJeyaq4nC8HHQelSeln_BB8fnVlz9I/view?usp=sharing).
>
> Action item #4 – Each group (SG/C/AC) to review latest versions of data elements workbooks and flag any issues that need to be reviewed prior to publication of Initial Report by Friday 2 November. (see https://community.icann.org/x/5AC8BQ).
>
> Action item #5 – Each group (SG/C/AC) to review the responsible parties overview for all purposes and identify which designations need to be further considered by Monday 29 October. (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-rdfchOwpANFVKOtnM_9bPp-zT4JAvTN8dJqebdi-dM/edit?usp=sharing)
>
> Note: Staff’s provision of an updated and comprehensive data matrix and updated Initial Report draft is dependent on timely delivery of the above feedback.
>
> Outstanding Charter Questions (not discussed yet or addressed through ongoing work)
>
> q)   Sun-setting WHOIS Contractual Requirements
>
> q1) After migration to RDAP, when can requirements in the Contracts to use WHOIS protocol be eliminated?
>
> q2) If EPDP Team’s decision includes a replacement directory access protocol, such as RDAP, when can requirements in the Contracts to use WHOIS protocol be eliminated?
>
> b)   Collection of registration data by registrar:
>
> b3) How shall legitimacy of collecting data be defined (at least for personal data collected from European registrants and others in jurisdictions with data protection law)?
>
> k)    ICANN's responsibilities in processing data
>
> k2) In addition to any specific duties ICANN may have as data controller, what other obligations should be noted by this EPDP Team, including any duties to registrants that are unique and specific to ICANN’s role as the administrator of policies and contracts governing gTLD domain names?
>
> l)     Registrar's responsibilities in processing data
>
> l4)  What are the registrar's responsibilities to the data subject with respect to data processing activities that are under ICANN’s control?
>
> m)   Registry's responsibilities in processing data
>
> m4) What are the registry's responsibilities to the data subject based on the above?
>
> Outstanding items in data elements workbooks
>
> Purpose B Punch List:
>
> - Confirm staff-suggested responses for Purpose Rationale questions
>
> - Confirm data elements (note: Purpose B data elements are dependent on the completion of all other workbooks, as Purpose B only references data already collected)
>
> Purpose C Punch List:
>
> - Confirm staff-suggested response for Purpose Rationale questions
>
> - Confirm staff-suggested note re: definition of optional (footnote 2 in workbook)
>
> - Confirm data elements
>
> Purpose E (Registrar Data Escrow) Punch List:
>
> - Confirm Collection Processing Activity (Purpose does not necessarily require collection)
>
> - Confirm data elements
>
> Purpose F Punch List:
>
> - Confirm staff-suggested response for Purpose Rationale questions
>
> - Confirm data elements
>
> Purpose M Punch List:
>
> - Determine inclusion/exclusion of RDDRP, PDDRP, and PICDRP RPMs within the purpose statement (adjust PAs if excluded)
>
> - Confirm staff-suggested responses for Purpose Rationale questions
>
> - Confirm Processing Activities structure, especially Disclosure and Retention
>
> - Confirm Data Elements
>
> Purpose N Punch List:
>
> - Determine if Purpose Statement is an ICANN Purpose (note Collection PA indicates ICANN as a Joint Controller)
>
> - Confirm Processing Activities structure, especially Disclosure and Retention
>
> - Confirm Data Element (Other Data)
>
> Marika Konings
>
> Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Email: marika.konings at icann.org
>
> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=Cg5uQf0yAfw-qlFZ0WNBfsLmmtBNUiH0SuI6Vg-gXBQ&e=) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=tT-E2RoAucUb3pfL9zmlbRdq1sytaEf765KOEkBVCjk&e=).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20181101/a0143b11/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Draft - RySG revisions Small Team #2 Geographic.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19639 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20181101/a0143b11/NCSGDraft-RySGrevisionsSmallTeam2Geographic-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Draft - Small Team #1 ? Legal vs Natural Person.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20181101/a0143b11/NCSGDraft-SmallTeam1LegalvsNaturalPerson-0001.docx>