[Gnso-epdp-team] Notes, action items and outcomes of today's EPDP Team meeting
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 02:36:01 UTC 2019
Dear All,
We have discussed at length the text of this Recommandation which is
currently drafted as follows
*Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that
requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current
ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this
policy” *
The lagunage used in this Recommandation referred to the current ICANN
Contract the "*requirements related to the accuracy of registration data "*in
a defensive (negative )connotation without any clear référence to GPDR
requirements in Article 5 ( 5d1)
In order to mitigate the case I suggest the following wording
*Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that
ICANN shall ensure that the requirements related to the accuracy of
registration data as stipulated in paragraph 5.1d of Article 5 of GDPR are
maintained *
*This modification is precise, conise and implicitly refers to the **current
ICANN contracts .The concept suggested by Farzaneh during the call and I
slightly amend that to take into account of views expressed after her
suggestion ,in particulier, by Milton after my first draft taking
Farzaneh's suggestion.*
*I do not agree to f seek any legal advice on this issue as this is a
matter that needs to be agreed by us *
*I respectfully request you to consider the matter and ask Kurt to bring it
up at our next meeting .*
*It is disappointing and frustrating that the comments made by two members
are so categorically rejected *
*Regards*
*Kavouss *
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:14 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
wrote:
> Dear EPDP Team,
>
>
>
> Please find below the notes, action items and outcomes of today’s EPDP
> Team meeting.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
>
>
> =================
>
>
>
> EPDP Team Meeting #38
>
> Tuesday, 22 January 2019
>
> Notes and Action Items
>
>
>
> *EPDP Team Outcomes:*
>
> - Recommendation #3 agreement to leave as is in the Initial Report.
> EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model
> discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired.
> - Recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this
> recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the
> analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation
> will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would
> define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final
> work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the
> tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available
> before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider.
>
>
>
> *High-level Notes/Actions:*
>
>
>
> *Action item #1*: Kurt to draft question for submission to legal
> committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what
> the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations.
>
>
>
> *Action item #2*: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information
> provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field.
> Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should
> be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request,
> the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the
> city field to legal counsel.
>
>
>
> *Action item #3*: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to
> recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in
> principle.
>
>
>
> *Action item #4*: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the
> list which other items need further consideration now, which could be
> addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups.
>
>
>
> *Action item #5*: Leadership team to review general comments discussion
> table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or
> should be addressed.
>
>
>
> *Action item #6*: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final
> Report as soon as possible.
>
>
>
> *Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP Team: *None
>
>
>
> *Notes & Action items*
>
> *These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate
> through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the
> transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided
> separately and are posted on the wiki at: *
> *https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ*
> <https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ>*.*
>
>
>
> Proposed Agenda:
>
>
>
> *1. Roll Call & SOI Updates*
>
> - Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect
> - Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your
> name before speaking for transcription purposes.
> - Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as
> needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team.
>
>
>
> 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes)
>
> a. Recap from F2F meeting and next steps
>
> b. Review of outstanding action items
>
> c. Other updates, if applicable
>
>
>
> - Thank you for all your efforts and work in Toronto
> - Make sure to have PCRTs and comment summaries available (see
> https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg)
> - Please make sure to review emails that have and will be circulated -
> important to flag by the deadline when items need to be discussed further.
> - Request to reconsider travel support for Kobe. Will likely be in
> phase 2. Would require additional budget allocation. General methodology
> for how GNSO meetings are run is expected to be applied - remote
> participation will be available.
> - ARS - is it possible to modify compliance purpose to cover also ARS.
> Could it be part of accuracy discussion? Need to separate accuracy from
> data quality (ARS).
>
>
>
> 3. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report
>
> a. Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team
> recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data
> under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be
> affected by this policy” (30 minutes)
>
> i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and
> discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes)
>
> ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion?
> Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team
> has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation?
> (20 minutes)
>
> iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to
> agreement (5 minutes)
>
>
>
> - See SSAC comments. Linked to phase 2. Not intended to change the
> existing recommendation.
> - Would it be worth asking Ruth to clarify what accuracy requirements
> entail under GDPR? Legal committee to consider question on this topic. The
> group has different interpretations as to what 'accuracy' means under GDPR.
> Legal advice is not expected to change this recommendation but may help
> inform future work. Make sure that any question is specific as possible,
> e.g. Does controller have any responsibilities in relation to accuracy and
> if so, what would those be?
> - Consider moving this work to phase 2?
> - This appears to be a policy issue, not GDPR compliance. Could be
> dealt with later.
> - Should EPDP Team evaluate whether existing accuracy procedures
> comply with GDPR?
> - The party collecting data must make sure that the data is accurately
> put into their system. So this is a requirement for the registrars in
> particularly to ensure that the data - as provided by the data subject - is
> processed accurately.
> - Need to ensure that compliance has the ability to do their job -
> aligns with how recommendation is worded at the moment.
> - EPDP Team agreement to leave recommendation #3 as is. EPDP Team to
> ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure
> that accuracy requirements are not impaired.
>
>
>
> *Action item #1*: WHOIS accuracy - Kurt to draft question for submission
> to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean
> and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations.
>
>
>
>
>
> b. Recommendation 9 – Data redaction - City (30 minutes)
>
> i. Review of ICANN Org response to question on this topic
> (see
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001250.html)
> (5 minutes)
>
> ii. Deliberate (20 minutes)
>
> iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to
> agreement (5 minutes)
>
>
>
> - Initial Report recommended to keep Temp Spec requirements for City
> which means redaction, with IPC/BC noting that it should be unredacted.
> - Discussed during F2F meeting with several expressing support for not
> redacting. ICANN Org information shared re. rationale for redaction.
> - Response from Org speaks to City and postal code, not specifically
> city. Combination of city and postal code is what could be problematic, not
> necessarily just city.
> - In smaller places, identifying city could be an issue.
> - See also discussion held by RDS PDP WG on this topic.
> - Redaction of city is compliant per the Temporary Specification, so
> why change it now.
> - Useful field for the reasons of jurisdiction.
> - Need to assess support across different groups and determine whether
> consensus exists.
> - Everyone encouraged to review the information that has been provided
> on this subject to be able to opine. Consider asking for legal guidance.
> - Show of hands of those who cannot live with sticking with the
> temporary specification requirement of redacting city field: IPC, GAC, BC.
> Document in the Final Report those that cannot live with it.
>
>
>
> *Action item #2*: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information
> provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field.
> Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should
> be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request,
> the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the
> city field to legal counsel.
>
>
>
> 10 minute break
>
>
>
> c. Recommendation #14 Responsible Parties (30 minutes)
>
> i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and
> discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes)
>
> ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion?
> Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team
> has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation?
> (20 minutes)
>
> iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to
> agreement (5 minutes)
>
>
>
> - Comments do not seem to focus on specific changes
> - Some of this may get determined / dictated by the agreements that
> are put in place. Should a small team review the table and determine
> whether any updates need to be made?
> - What concerns have been raised that need to be addressed in the
> recommendation?
> - These are issues where there is disagreement, but it is not a matter
> of what the parties say but it is a matter law.
> - Caveat the analysis in some way. Further work is being done. This
> could help inform those deliberations but it cannot be determinative. Best
> thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an
> iterative process in the form of the necessary agreements which would
> define the roles and responsibilities. CPH will need to have appropriate
> agreements with ICANN with regard to data processing.
> - Will need to review the processing flows after purposes are
> finalized and data element workbooks have been finished. For example, UDRP
> is one area where data processing flows are not clear. Note that a small
> team will meet later today to work on the data elements workbooks. Focus is
> on post-filing data flows.
> - Will need to be further detailed in the context of the discussions
> on the appropriate agreements between CP and ICANN Org.
> - Path for settling is greater than the time this group has available.
> - This is dependent on appropriate agreements being in place, as these
> would inform these recommendations. See also recommendation #13. Obligation
> for ICANN Org to come to the table.
> - EPDP Team outcome on recommendation #14: update language to caveat
> that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on
> the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this
> Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary
> agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support
> team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure
> consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further
> guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP
> Team can reconsider.
>
>
>
> *Action item #3*: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to
> recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in
> principle.
>
>
>
> d. General Comments (30 minutes)
>
> i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and
> discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes)
>
> ii. Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit
> group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements
> suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed in the
> context of the Initial Report? (20 minutes)
>
> iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to
> agreement (5 minutes)
>
>
>
> - Some issues flagged have already been taken up or have been
> addressed.
> - Need to further consider Thick WHOIS recommendation as well as P/P
> recommendation.
> - Thick WHOIS - may be mixing topics. Group has discussed transfer of
> data from registrar to registry, but that may not be the same as a registry
> displaying THICK WHOIS output. EPDP Team should consider disclosure at
> registry level. What needs to happen in phase 1 and what needs to happen in
> phase 2, and what is best left to another group? Different options to
> consider on the table. Consider this topic further in the context of
> recommendation #5, noting that disclosure is a separate topic from
> transfer. Or should this be taken up in phase 2?
> - P/P - additional recommendation as to how to handle P/P
> registrations: "In the case of a domain name registration where a
> privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural
> person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full
> WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email". What
> was in the Temporary Specification - need to confirm. Current language is:
> 2.6. Notwithstanding Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of this Appendix, in
> the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used
> (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar
> MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the
> existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email. Need to consider this further and
> implications on GDPR.
> - Consider deferring these issues to another group to further review.
> - Consider doing further triage – does it require changes to our
> Initial Report recommendations, does it require phase two work, or is there
> another group who is / should deal with this.
> - Leadership team to review and make a proposal
> - Look at suggestion of reconsidering definition of gTLD registration
> data – bring this to the list.
>
>
>
> *Action item #4*: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the
> list which other items need further consideration now, which could be
> addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups.
>
>
>
> *Action item #5*: Leadership team to review general comments discussion
> table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or
> should be addressed.
>
>
>
> 4. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes)
>
> a. See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see
> https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoKDn/view?usp=sharing
> )
>
> b. Initial thoughts and suggestions
>
> c. Process for review (see
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnLL8jw/edit?usp=sharing
> )
>
>
>
> *Action item #6*: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final
> Report as soon as possible.
>
>
>
> 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday,
> 24 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes)
>
> a. Confirm action items
>
> b. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Marika Konings*
>
> *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
>
> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org <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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190123/31b837d6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team
mailing list