[Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] RE: For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach
Janis Karklins
karklinsj at gmail.com
Wed May 15 11:57:36 UTC 2019
Hadia,
Thank you for your comment.
It seems that additional clarification should be provided on the draft
approach in relation to the unified access model.
I see it as a standard, that might be applied possibly in centralized or
decentralized manner. Alternative to it would be completely decentralized
model without any unified element. It is suggested, at least intention of
the draft was to propose working towards development of a standard with
understanding that the decision on a way of its application (centralized or
decentralized) will be taken at the later stage.
Theoretically I see also possible combination of both approaches in UAM,
whereby some contracting parties may opt for a centralized model but some
for decentralized model.
I hope this clarifies and alleviates your concern.
My apologies for imperfect formulation in the slide.
Looking forward to engaging conversation tomorrow.
JK
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:32 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <
Hadia at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Thank you Janis and leadership team and for the proposed EPDP team Phase
> 2 draft approach, A couple of thoughts to share
>
>
>
> On the first slide "Draft Approach" you suggest that until legal certainty
> is available, the policy development related work will be agonistic to the
> system modalities , where you refer to the UAM as a centralized model. It
> is too early to conclude that the issue is centralized vs decentralized,
> how did we reach this conclusion? Also there are many aspects to
> centralization which one are we referring too? Our starting point should be
> our deliverable, a unified access/disclosure model that is GDPR compliant
> and reduces the liabilities. The TSG has put the broad lines for a UAM from
> a technical point of view, which shows the feasibility of an implementable
> model from a technical aspect. We are still to define the system from a
> policy point of view. To that end, I don't see that we should be avoiding
> discussions about a UAM and that it should be included when discussing work
> stream 1 issues.
>
>
>
> With regard to the working terminology, I believe we should be referring
> to the data being disclosed as " nonpublic registration data" and not "
> Personal Information". We don't need to define the type of disclosed data,
> it could be personal or non-personal. Some redacted data items are by
> definition non-personal information but were redacted because it was though
> that in conjunction with other pieces of information it could lead to
> identifying the data subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Hadia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:03 PM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] RE: For your review - Phase 2 Draft
> Approach
>
>
>
> Thank you Janis and the leadership team for providing this draft approach
> for phase 2. I think this is an excellent start. I have some
> thoughts/feedback to share after giving this a review.
>
>
>
> - The objective (first bullet slide 2) is more accurately to develop
> and agree on “policy recommendations”… rather than “rules and
> requirements”. This might be semantics and our policy recommendations may
> get specific as to the rules and requirements needed, but I think it’s an
> important distinction to make.
>
>
>
> - I’m not convinced that the proposed worksheets would be useful. To
> me they seem similar in nature to the discussion summary indexes from phase
> 1 (
> https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/c.+Temporary+Specification+Discussion+Summary+Indexes
> ). Staff worked hard to create them early in phase 1 but we never
> really used or leveraged them for our subsequent work. I’m curious what
> other’s thoughts are.
>
>
>
> - At the start of our phase 2 work we should be in information
> gathering mode. A few things come to mind that we should consider.
> - At the start of phase 1 we asked for early input from SOs and
> ACs. I thought this was beneficial in informing our early work and I
> suggest we consider if something similar could be done for phase 2.
> - Is there any training or education that working group members
> should receive? Early in phase 1 it was arranged for working group members
> to take an online GDPR class. I don’t have anything specific in mind, but
> its worth asking the question if there is something similar that working
> group members would benefit from for phase 2.
> - Briefings from experts – We had an opportunity to hear from Becky
> Burr and ask her questions as a privacy officer and ICANN board member in a
> session that I think was very well received. Are there experts we could
> hear from for phase 2? We’ve discussed previously asking for a briefing
> from the RPM working group and the Privacy/Proxy IRT. Now might be the
> time to try and schedule those.
>
>
>
> - Requests to ICANN org – in our phase 1 report we had a couple of
> asks of ICANN org. Some of these were intended to provide additional
> information to inform our phase 2 deliberations. We should follow up on
> those phase 1 asks and also consider if there are other asks of ICANN org
> relevant to phase 2.
>
>
>
> - At the ICANN Barcelona meeting there was a high interest panel
> session on the phase 1 ePDP. Kurt facilitated the sessions with working
> group members serving as panelists. For many in the ICANN community this
> was the first opportunity to get detailed information about how the ePDP
> was going. The session was well attended and we received a lot of positive
> feedback. Looking at the schedule, the timing of ICANN 66 might be good to
> provide a similar update to the community on phase 2.
>
>
>
> I look forward to hearing from others and discussing on our 16 May call.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Marika
> Konings
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 08, 2019 5:39 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] RE: For your review -
> Phase 2 Draft Approach
>
>
>
> Apologies, it looks like the pdf conversion got rid of the ticks. We’ve
> replaced them with ‘X’ in the attached version.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 15:35
> *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org"
> <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Looks like Janis and staff have been busy!
>
> I have a question about Slide 7. There are no “X’s” or ticks in the
> columns for WS 1 and WS 2.
>
> So I can’t tell what this means. Are we proposing (I hope) that WS1 meets
> on Tuesdays and WS2 meets on Thursdays? Or is this still open-ended?
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Marika
> Konings
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2019 2:07 PM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach
>
>
>
> *Sending on behalf of Janis Karklins*
>
>
>
> Dear EPDP Team,
>
>
>
> Following last week’s meeting, the leadership team and staff support have
> worked together on developing a draft approach for tackling phase 2. We
> hope this strikes a balance between the different views expressed and will
> form the basis for a detailed work plan with concrete milestones and
> deliverables. You will find attached a couple of slides that outline our
> current thinking in further detail, but here are some points I want to
> emphasize:
>
>
>
> - This is a draft approach for discussion and review. Based on your
> input prior and our discussion during next week’s meeting, we will further
> iterate and detail our approach, the proposed work plan and accompanying
> timeline. This draft is for discussion that, hopefully, will lead to a
> consensual agreement.
> - For the purpose of our exercise it is important to use definitions
> and terminology with the same understanding. We propose to develop and use
> working definitions without prejudice to consensual outcome. Final
> definitions can only be developed once the Team has finalized its work and
> agreed on its recommendations.
> - Based on the Team’s feedback in relation to the request to form a
> small team to engage with ICANN Org, I suggest to keep a plenary setting
> which will avoid creating a separate structure and ensure that everyone is
> part of discussion. Nevertheless, as this work on obtaining legal certainty
> is ongoing, I would propose that we deal with the charter questions and
> list of issues identified on slide 5 in an agnostic manner. In other
> words, we should refrain at the outset to deliberate on whether or not a
> System for Standardized Disclosure should be centralized or not, but rather
> we should focus on the commonalities and where needed identify that
> differentiation may be required depending on which model is ultimately
> determined to be legally compliant with GDPR and workable. I also expect
> that this approach would help inform the engagement of ICANN org and DPAs.
> - I appreciate that some of you may consider the timeline ambitious,
> but I’ve heard from almost everyone that the work on a System for
> Standardized Disclosure is a priority and as such I am committed to setting
> a target date for us to work towards. This will require your support and
> dedication. I am pretty confident I can count on that.
>
>
>
> I look forward to receiving your feedback and would like to encourage you
> to focus your input on what, why and how things could or should be done
> differently, instead of simply saying that something cannot be acceptable
> or should not be done.
>
>
>
> Janis Karklins
>
>
>
> *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/20190515/60ccdd5e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team
mailing list