[Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed working definitions of the frequently used terms during the EPDP Phase 2

[jk]

Hi Milton.

 

I would agree with you if you would be the only member of the team. There
are others who hold different view. My role of the Chair is to try to
reconcile diverging opinion and propose compromise formulations. This is
what I attempted to do. 

 

May I also propose an experiment to you. Pls step in my shoes for a moment
and try to reconcile different opinion of the team and come up with a
compromise formulation.

 

Thing that I agree is that we don't need to waste too much time on working
definition. If after further reflections members will not be able to come to
a consensual compromise, I will park the document in the folder - Chair's
proposals.

 

Looking forward to see your compromise formulation.

 

JK

 

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 7:33 PM
To: Janis Karklins <karklinsj at gmail.com>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Cc: gnso-epdp-lead at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed working definitions of the frequently
used terms during the EPDP Phase 2

 

Hi, Janis,

 

I am still having trouble with this: 

 

"The request of third parties for access to full set or subset of non-public
gTLD domain name registration data through disclosure policy that is fully
compliant with GDPR and developed as a result of the EPDP."

 

This definition seems to be straining to get the word "access" into the
definition even though the substance of the definition renders the word
meaningless. Please do the following experiment. Delete the words "access to
full set or subset of" from this definition. This is what you get: 

 

"The request of third parties for non-public gTLD domain name registration
data through disclosure policy that is fully compliant with GDPR and
developed as a result of the EPDP."

 

In other words, the definition works fine without the word access. 

 

So let's be frank and realistic. We have a solid legal basis for talking
about access for data subjects and none for access for third parties. Ergo,
there is no reason to include third party requests in the definition of
"access" unless we are trying to leverage the definition to lead to a
particular policy outcome. 

 

I respectfully suggest, again, that we stop wasting time trying to impose
idiosyncratic and politically motivated definitions on the process, and move
straight on to having the policy debate about what kind of disclosure
processes and rights third parties are going to get. That, ultimately, is
all that matters. The definitional stuff is just spinning our wheels with
political spin and positioning. 

 

--MM

  _____  

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Janis Karklins
<karklinsj at gmail.com <mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 5:59 AM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org> 
Cc: gnso-epdp-lead at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed working definitions of the frequently
used terms during the EPDP Phase 2 

 

Dear team members, 

 

Pls see attached the Proposed working definitions of the frequently used
terms during the EPDP Phase 2. It takes to account comments made by members
and attempts to reconcile divergence of views on interpretation of some
terms.

 

Pls consider this proposal with clear understanding that these are not legal
definitions, but only explanatory texts for the use of EPDP Phase 2 only.

 

I hope you will find proposal as one you can live with. My wish is to
endorse this understanding and move further with discussions on the outline
of SSAD.

 

Thank you

JK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190531/f451e9f3/attachment.html>