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

Janis Karklins karklinsj at gmail.com
Thu Oct 10 20:45:34 UTC 2019


Thank you all for flexibility. The letter will be sent to the Board with
proposed two edits.
5 questions to the ICANN Org will not be attached.

JK

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:04 PM Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191010/0edc7b97/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list