[Gnso-epdp-team] High-level notes and action items - EPDP Team F2F - 9-11 September

Fri Sep 13 00:39:17 UTC 2019

Dear EPDP Team:

Below, please find high-level notes and action items from the face-to-face meeting.

As a reminder, the next EPDP Phase 2 meeting will be Thursday, 19 September at 14:00 UTC. The Legal Committee will meet on Tuesday, 17 September at 14:00 UTC.

Wishing everyone safe travels home.

Best regards,

Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

--

Action Items

Alex Deacon, Milton Mueller and other willing volunteers to draft a write up of a potential accreditation model, taking into account the Team’s F2F discussions, in advance of the Thursday, 19 September meeting. 
IPC, BC, SSAC, and GAC reps to separately draft a vision for their “ideal accreditation model” in order to assist the group with what the baseline accreditation requirements could be as well as the attendant benefits of accreditation within the architecture of an SSAD by Wednesday, September 18. 
Support Staff to create a table (in the form of a Google Doc) which includes a column for each lawful basis and a column for what a requesting party would be required to provide in its request, what is the expected response time, is automation likely, what are the standardized categories that may fall within that lawful basis, etc.  Following receipt of the table, the EPDP Team members to populate the contents of the table. If there are commonalities, policy recommendations can be drafted accordingly.  
Support staff to create a Google Doc in which EPDP Team Members are to review and consider the types of disclosure decision models (in other words, who is making the ultimate determination to disclose non-public registration data - contracted party or ICANN) and what would make these options acceptable to the different groups by Thursday, September 19.
EPDP Team to review the legal memos and come back with the most relevant points that need to be factored in as the Staff Support Team produces the 1.0 draft by Thursday, September 19.
James and Mark Sv. to work together on a revised proposal for Building Block L (SSAD query policy) by Thursday, September 19. When discussing updates to Building Block L, Team members to consider if it is within the Team’s charter to continue discussing this issue.
Matt C. to review the legal advice on how to perform the balancing test and update Alan Woods’ initial balancing test document into a simple guide to conduct the balancing test to be included in the next iteration of the zero draft by Thursday, September 19. 
Contracted party Team members to draft letter to ICANN Board, outlining scenarios discussed, including where the disclosure decision lies within the SSAD, and inquire whether there are any options the Board would not be amenable to. 

High-level Notes

ACCREDITATION–Building Block F

Straw Proposals Presented prior to Discussion: Milton Mueller and Alex Deacon

Outcome / Agreements
EPDP Team did not agree on accreditation process or assignments; however, it agreed that a small group would consider the Team’s discussion during the F2F and develop a proposal for a subsequent discussion.
The EPDP Team agreed to separate authentication from authorization. The team did not agree that the accreditor would perform the authorization function. 

Discussion Notes

Purpose·         Remove burden from entity providing disclosure ·         Provide code of contract or series of contracts·         Spread liability (without diminishing protections for data subjects)·         Provide process pathway to track data / monitoring
Who serves as accreditor·         Entity develops request or proposal·         Competent authority with legal basis; demonstrates consistency with Article 42 and 43·         EPDP sets outline and principles and assessment activities
AccreditorTasksAuthentication – confirm identityEstablish preliminary determination on lawful basisConsider how to manage volume requests NOTE: Authorization process is not necessarily with the accreditor. Sub-team will consider whether Authorization should rest with another entity or with the accreditor or unique criteria
Role: Certifying Accreditor No Agreement, options discussed:·         ICANN – difficult because they process of data ·         Independent Data Trust·         DPA
Role: Accreditation Body(ies)·         WIPO·         Law enforcement–each country would have one entry point. i.e. in U.S. it might be FBI or in other countries, it would be the national country.·         Europol and Interpol–agree this is not possible for law enforcement agencies, at least not for certain countries·         Limit # of accrediting bodies to be able to manage system·         Create track for entities that are not accredited
Role: AuditorAgree that auditing is needed; unclear who should conduct audits
Role & Process: De-AccreditationEPDP agrees that de-accreditation should be a componentAccreditor must be compliant with DPAsNeed to establish how to do this, such as:·         Safeguards, prevent entity from setting up shop next door·         Remedial action, i.e. may not shut down immediately, some corrective action is possible

Decision to DiscloseJoint ControllerWho Balances?Entity with Legal Basis
Options: Who Decides?{Note: EPDP did not decide on preferred option in LA. Group will consider options and potentially write a letter to Board to frame questions}JC Agreement §  Responsibilities identified in agreement; CPs cannot increase their risk§  Must be correct to manage liability / risk§  Liability is clearly defined (ICANN or CPs)§  Establish Joint and Severable Liability
Contracted PartiesICANNIndependent Data Trust 
PROS/CONS+ Most accountable to data subject+ Has physical access to data- Lack of consistency with hundreds of CPs applying policy to make decision to disclose- ICANN unable to indemnify CPs (maybe, shared risk possible)+ Bird & Bird Memo states that CPs are controllers and retain liabilitiesPROS/CONS+ Reduce risk of liability to CPs+ Provides consistency+ One party that performs decision and auditing role might be preferable+ Build body of work / decisions consistently Considerations for all OptionsStandardized clearing houseTimely ResponseInsurance to alleviate risk or establishing risk fund may be possible
 ICANN sets rules so it has to be a joint controller SSAD Not required by lawGoal = predictableEasier

Building Block N, Financial Sustainability

Outcome: Staff to develop Draft 1.0 with implementation guidelines consistent with the F2F discussion. 

Note: The EPDP noted the need to make SSAD Determination and consider cost-benefit analysis before finalizing approach to financial sustainability.

Set Up Cost of Providing and Making Available an Investigative Tool   Cost SharingShare cost across the systemDirect and indirect beneficiariesShare costs across the systemCPs contribute intangible resources via in-house staff, etc.  

UseLook at other Models
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS: Certainty to Process  Cost Savings

FLIP CHARTS

Each stakeholder group contributed principles / ideas to ignite the conversation.

SSACAll participants have costs:
Central system = ICANN
CPs: receive, review, reply
Requestors: accreditation, query-making
 Issue subsidies? Letting market workRDS as basic service / core servicePassing costs to requestors: May burden victims.GAC
Any financing model should not be profit/revenue generating
System should not provide financial disincentives to requestors acting on behalf of public authorities
CPH
Any financial model should not be profit/revenue generating
Cost Neutral and borne by beneficiaries
Not a hidden tax / pass through charge to registrants / data subject
Integration costs represent CPH contributions
ALACConsider:·         Costs·         Cost Savings·         Accreditation costs borne by users·         Charge / Requestor: consideration of public interest exception·         Chares passed through to registrants seems inevitable (it’s part of the infrastructure)
NCSGCosts [potential funder]
Capital / set up costs [Large Users]
Accreditation costs [Flat fee per time period]
Usage costs (per request) [per request fee, cost-based. Higher for non-accredited]
Insurance costs [unsure]
Audit / enforcements [unsure, ICANN / DPAs?]
 CSGOK for cost-sharing to vary by volume, requestor type, legal obligation, etc. Fees on per-request basis are problematic Must not create disincentives to costs reductions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190913/c30715b2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8218 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190913/c30715b2/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4620 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190913/c30715b2/smime-0001.p7s>