[Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter

Becky Burr becky.burr at board.icann.org
Thu Oct 10 18:03:24 UTC 2019


just to be clear, I was also fine with the last sentence James included in
the draft

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:26 PM Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team <
gnso-epdp-team at icann.org> wrote:

> James, thank you for taking this on and the proposed edits.
>
>
>
> For edit 1 – I prefer the original text, but if the proposed re-write
> addresses the concern raised, then I can live with it.
>
>
>
> For edit 2 – Considering the proposed new version comes from Becky, I’m
> inclined to support that version.
>
>
>
>
>
> I do have a follow-up question for Janis.  At the top of the call I think
> I heard that you will include the questions proposed for ICANN Org with the
> letter to the ICANN Board.  Are you referring to the 5 questions proposed
> in this Google document?
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N66JcJ_1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-w3k8ItZIZ_ew/edit
>
>
>
> I have some concerns as while the proposed letter to the ICANN Board is
> drafted to stand on its own, these questions proposed to ICANN Org are
> not.  Sending them along with the letter may be somewhat confusing and
> distract from the purpose of the letter.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *James
> M. Bladel
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:56 AM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft
> of Board Letter
>
>
>
> Colleagues –
>
>
>
> Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed
> edits (below).  Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any
> objections to these changes as quickly as possible.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> J.
>
> _______________
>
>
>
> EDIT 1 -
>
> The final sentence of the second paragraph.  Replace:
>
>
>
> *All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will
> assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of
> responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a
> third-party requester. *
>
>
>
> With:
>
>
>
> *All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will
> assume some sort of operational role.  In some models, ICANN could assume
> varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose
> non-public data to third-party requesters.*
>
>
>
> EDIT 2 –
>
> The final sentence of the letter.  Replace:
>
>
>
> *Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model,
> and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the
> existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar
> independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to
> queries on a case by case basis.*
>
>
>
> With:
>
>
>
> *Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy
> recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which
> each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own
> balancing test,  and responds to queries on a case by case basis.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07
> *To: *"gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
> *Subject: *EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
>
>
>
> Colleagues –
>
>
>
> Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members
> were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence.  Since that call,
> I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some
> edits.  The resulting Revised Draft copied below.  To expedite your review,
> please note that only the final sentence has changed.
>
>
>
> Thanks—
>
>
>
> J.
>
> -------------
>
> *James Bladel*
>
> GoDaddy
>
>
>
> Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for
> Access/Disclosure (SSAD)
>
> To: ICANN Board
> CC: Goran
> CC: GNSO Council
>
> Dear ICANN Board,
>
> We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons.  The
> working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the
> Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely,
> implementable policy recommendations.  Specifically, we seek to understand
> the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level
> of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public
> registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN
> organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order
> to do so.
>
> Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current
> situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a
> case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and
> decentralized manner.  We are considering several models for a Standardized
> System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the
> Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group.  All of
> the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an
> operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of
> responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a
> third-party requester.
>
> In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies,
> or function as an accrediting body themselves.  Some proposed models
> establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an
> initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to
> the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require
> ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the
> request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or
> registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party
> requester.
>
> We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated
> with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data
> Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws.  We are also aware of
> the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data
> protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in
> decisions to disclose non-public registration data.  As noted above, our
> goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy
> recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of
> involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN
> org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do
> so.
>
> Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model,
> and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the
> existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar
> independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to
> queries on a case by case basis.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> EPDP Phase 2 working group members
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20191010/598da2c3/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list