[Gnso-epdp-team] Notes, action items and outcomes of today's EPDP Team meeting

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jan 25 19:37:11 UTC 2019


Dear Kurt,
Thanks for reply.
Yes you are right but this could be amended by adding a qualifier at the
Beginning similar to the language used in current draft for Recommendation
12..
*The EPDP Team recommends that  , subject to further analysis to be done at
later stage , the 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 ,on an intérim basis  *
Regards
Kavouss



On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 5:23 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:

> Hi Kavouss:
>
> Thank you for this recommendation and I apologize for getting back to you
> some days later on it.
>
> My recollection was this was discussed at the Team level. (If that
> recollection is faulty, we discussed a similar issue and can apply the same
> rationale that I describe below.)
>
> I believe your proposal is an accurate gauge of the team sentiment.
> However, the recommended change essentially states, we will comply to the
> GDPR, which is what we are trying to do in every case. I remember, either
> in this case or another, similar language was debated and it was determined
> that language merely echoing the GDPR would not be appropriate.
>
> If you disagree with this - let’s discuss it offline to see if there is
> another way to address your concern.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
> kurt
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2019, at 6:36 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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/20190125/34d43a6f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list