[Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda and items for input - EPDP Team Meeting #23
marika.konings at icann.org
Mon Nov 5 16:55:00 UTC 2018
Thanks, Thomas. Please note that in other to facilitate that conversation, staff put together the following document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-rdfchOwpANFVKOtnM_9bPp-zT4JAvTN8dJqebdi-dM/edit which basically pulled out this information from the different data elements workbooks. Input was in principle due last Friday, but in order to help inform the discussion, it would be really helpful if you could mark specifically which responsibilities may need updating / streamlining and why so this can help focus further discussions.
With regards to the Initial Report, note that as work on the data elements workbooks and other outstanding items (as flagged in blue in the Initial Report) is completed, this will get copied / pasted into the relevant sections and as such should not prevent review of the other parts of the Initial Report. We understand that the timeline is putting a lot of pressure on everyone to review the information in a timely manner, but unfortunately there is very little flexibility in the timeline with the original publication data already being pushed out by two weeks from the original timeline (any additional time here, will mean less time for the remaining phases of work).
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
From: Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja>
Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 10:24 AM
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Cc: Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja>, "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Agenda and items for input - EPDP Team Meeting #23
May I ask for an additional point to be added to the agenda?
It is relating to the responsibilities of the parties. Looking at all the work sheets, there are a few processing activities, for which the parties are not joint controllers, but where we have controller-processor relationships. I am not sure this is the best possible outcome and I would like to have a discussion about streamlining this. In my view, it is possible to make more points part of the joint controller situation and take care of the responsibilities in the joint controller agreement by allocating responsibilities to specific parties and add indemnification clauses to get to the intended results.
Also, it is difficult to work on the draft report and provide input while work books and other input is not yet stable. Can we please get more time to review a stable version of the draft initial report?
Am 05.11.2018 um 17:05 schrieb Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>:
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday 5 November at 14.00 UTC. In relation to agenda item 4, please review the following and provide your feedback on the mailing list to help inform the discussion.
* Technical contact consent
In relation to the data elements that are optional to provide for the Registered Name Holder (RNH), the following language was added to the preliminary recommendation to reflect that the registrar may not have a direct contractual relationship with the data subject whose information is provided by the RNH:
If the Registered Name Holder elects to provide contact information for a technical contact who does not have a direct contractual relationship with the registrar, the registrar is required to redact or obtain all necessary consent from the technical contact prior to publication.
However, noting that it is currently not proposed that technical contact information would be published, we would suggest making the following update:
If the Registered Name Holder elects to provide contact information for a technical contact who does not have a direct contractual relationship with the registrar, the registrar is required to redact or obtain all necessary consent from the technical contact prior to publication any disclosure.
Question for the EPDP Team: are you comfortable with the inclusion of this revised language as part of preliminary recommendation #10? If not, please provide your rationale and proposed changes / edits prior to the meeting.
* Data retention
This recommendation is derived from Data Elements Workbook A. Are there any concerns about this recommendation?
The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars are required to retain the herein-specified data elements for a period of one year following the life of the registration. This retention period conforms to the specific statute of limitations within the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (“TDRP”). Other relevant parties, including Registries, escrow providers and ICANN Compliance, have separate retention periods less than or equal to one year accordingly and in line with the GDPR requirements.
Question for the EPDP Team: are you comfortable with the inclusion of this preliminary recommendation? If not, please provide your rationale and proposed changes / edits prior to the meeting.
Note that in relation to small team #1 and #2 discussions, the leadership team will be putting forward a proposed path forward shortly.
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
EPDP Meeting #23 Agenda
Tuesday, 5 November 2018
1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)
2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes)
* Proposed approach for reviewing and finalizing the Initial Report
* Update on F2F planning
* Proposed next steps in relation to small team #1 and #2 language for inclusion in the Initial Report
* Review of outstanding action items
* Other updates, if applicable
1. Review of outstanding items for Initial Report and proposed approach
Objective of discussion:
1. Confirm list of outstanding items to be considered in relation to Initial Report and approach for addressing these
* Review outstanding issues punch list (to be circulated)
* Confirm approach for addressing these
* Confirm next steps, if any
1. Commence addressing outstanding items
* Technical contact redaction – any concerns in relation to proposed language for inclusion in the Initial Report?
* Data retention – any concerns in relation to proposed language for inclusion in the Initial Report?
* Confirm next steps, if any
1. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday 8 November at 14.00 UTC.
* Confirm action items
* Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto: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=>.
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team