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

King, Brian Brian.King at markmonitor.com
Thu Oct 10 20:25:39 UTC 2019


Hi all,

I do need to object to the second edit as it could reasonably be read to state a policy position on which we do not have consensus. To be quite clear and explicit for the board, the IPC proposes the following language, which we think is more accurate and conveys the gravity of the request:

“Absent this input, the prospect of consensus on a system for standardized access is unlikely.”

Thank you.

Brian J. King
Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs
MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics
Phone: +1 (443) 761-3726
brian.king at markmonitor.com

On 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1N66JcJ-5F1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-2Dw3k8ItZIZ-5Few_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=UK-APWURi9rgc2Xr2UYxmWokdzlKWDJ5I7lIFdlDv4w&s=aSe0MP2-sCNPsSOMW7OTjJnYTDYclYNa_YdIZCcxHXE&e=>

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<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07
To: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwICAg&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=UK-APWURi9rgc2Xr2UYxmWokdzlKWDJ5I7lIFdlDv4w&s=bt4lRNnELyNLD1AbW9VHMJkoE4KAyYydB3WvT8KDasU&e=
_______________________________________________
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=UK-APWURi9rgc2Xr2UYxmWokdzlKWDJ5I7lIFdlDv4w&s=7fi5QPZr8VwAxfwRHyOC0PLaIhTrmHhNqIEKbPZoEmo&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=UK-APWURi9rgc2Xr2UYxmWokdzlKWDJ5I7lIFdlDv4w&s=WrEGz9yOH6wx6qZCirGUO1ON_1GEMUosZNYLrMbzlfc&e= ). 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/a3f45682/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list