[Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting

Thu Jan 23 08:05:42 UTC 2020

Thank you, Milton for your comments.

I understand your opposition to the proposed composition of the Steering
Committee. It can be reviewed. Staff will explain thinking behind the
composition during the call and will point to the precedent.

You also wrote that the Steering Committee was a bad idea in general and
could undermine community policy development. If so, could you think of
anything instead providing that we would find a consensus on some kind of
evolutionary model?

I would invite the Team to consider the proposed model without taking into
account the composition of the Steering Committee.

Pls also consider last indication from the GAC that we should " automate to
the greatest extent that is possible at the start and move towards
automating a greater proportion of activities".

Our exercise is a balancing act among many competing interests and nobody
should feel fully satisfied. Pls be prepared for some uncomfortable
feeling:-).

Talk to you all later today
JK

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:41 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> I think this Hybrid proposal is one of those attempts to find a middle
> ground when you discover that the “middle” is a chasm with no floor.
>
>
>
> Just some brief comments about the obvious things as NCSG is preparing
> comments.
>
>
>
> I was opposed in principle to the idea of a standing committee that can
> redefine policy without a PDP. It struck me as a bad idea. This would
> become over time a shadow committee that would make policy in a small
> closed group with no checks and balances.
>
>
>
> But when I saw the proposed composition of the standing committee my
> opposition hardened into pure rage. That composition is not only
> unacceptable to NCSG, but constitutes what can only be interpreted as a
> calculated insult to the interests of data subjects, registrants and
> privacy advocates.
>
>
>
> You propose to give two dedicated seats to BC and IPC, which on this issue
> represent exactly the same constituencies and interests. You add another
> dedicated seat for SSAC, which also has an interest in disclosure, and is
> not a GNSO SG. You give multiple seats to CPH. So in effect, EVERY
> Stakeholder Group in the GNSO except ONE has multiple seats on this
> standing committee. How does one justify that? What kind of thinking about
> this problem would come up with that? Janis? Marika? Barry? Can you tell
> me? I will be very interested in listening to the rationale.
>
>
>
> Further, as Volker has noted, the idea of splitting a seat between two
> completely different units with no common procedures (ALAC and NCSG) is
> simply impractical.  Additionally, since this idea of a standing committee
> has no basis in prior discussions, I think we can eliminate it from
> consideration quite quickly tomorrow.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> School of Public Policy
>
> [image: IGP_logo_gold block]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Volker
> Greimann
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2020 4:47 AM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD
> Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for
> Thursday's meeting
>
>
>
> Hello Marika,
>
> thank you for the new proposal. I note that there is a new proposal
> included, which is the recommendation of the formation of a steering
> committee. Where did this come from? If it rises to the level of a proposed
> recommendation in the draft, it should have originated from the community
> and seen some consensus amongst our groups, but I recall no such
> discussion.
>
> I appreciate the apparent desire for something other than a full-fledged
> PDP to make modifications as time goes by and we learn more about the SSAD
> and its potential flaws, but I have my doubts that the community has
> sufficient resources in all groups to staff such a body (It sounds a bit
> like being condemned to "EPDP for life").
>
> The proposed make-up also seems unbalanced as the 4 CPH members could be
> outvoted by the 5 non-contracted members, and At-Large and NCSG share one
> seat (I have my doubts that this could lead to anything but a stalemate for
> that seat). As a majority is sufficient to send any proposal to the GNSO
> council (even though it requires a supermajority), this could be
> problematic.
>
> With regard to Rec 15: Logging, I porpose to clarify that logging should
> not extend to any personal data disclosed through the system as part of any
> disclosure decision as that would open up another can of privacy worms.
>
> Rec: 14: I Don't think the "must" in the first paragraph had consensus, or
> am I mistaken. "should" and "may" are fine, especially since it may not be
> known whether automation is legally permissible in any specific case unless
> it leaves the realm of automation and enters the realm of someone looking
> at the request and making the relevant determination. I am all for
> automating that which can be automated but ultimately that must be
> determined by the disclosing parties.
>
> Rec 12: Suggestion: Could we add something to the effect that requestors
> must/should state in their request for how long they will / expect to
> retain the data? Also, requestors must always state in their request that
> in case they intend to share the data with third parties, who those third
> parties are and what their purposes are.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
> Am 21.01.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Marika Konings:
>
> Dear EPDP Team,
>
>
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which
> is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC.
>
>
>
> Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to
> evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal
> with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share
> your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F
> meeting.  Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the
> proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary
> recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other
> comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will
> be considered after the group’s review of the proposal.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
>
>
>
>
> *EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41*
>
> *Proposed Agenda*
>
> Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC
>
>
>
> 1.                            Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)
>
>
>
> 2.                            Confirmation of agenda (Chair)
>
>
>
> 3.                            Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5
> minutes)
>
> a)                     Update from the legal committee
>
> b)                     ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to
> Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson:
>
> ·    Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry
> letter?
>
> ·    Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets
> with the Belgian DPA?
>
>
>
> 4.       Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a
> Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”)
>
> a)                     Staff overview
>
> b)                     EPDP Team reactions
>
> c)                     Confirm next steps
>
>
>
> 5.                            Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles
>
> a)                     Leadership Priorities
>
> b)                    EPDP Team input
>
> c)                     Confirmation of expected homework / preparations
> by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting
>
> d)                    Confirm next steps
>
>
>
> 6.                            Continue review of issues list (those items
> not dependent on item #4), if time allows
>
> a)                     See highlighted items on the issue list (to be
> circulated)
>
> b)                    EPDP Team input
>
> c)                     Confirm next steps
>
>
>
> 7.                            Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5
> minutes):
>
> a)                     Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the
> ICANN office
>
> b)                     Confirm action items
>
> c)                     Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Volker A. Greimann
> General Counsel and Policy Manager
> *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*
>
> T: +49 6894 9396901
> M: +49 6894 9396851
> F: +49 6894 9396851
> W: www.key-systems.net
>
> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of
> Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>
> Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in
> England and Wales with company number 8576358.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200123/fee56711/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17612 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200123/fee56711/image002-0001.png>