[Gnso-epdp-team] Fwd: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps

Tue Mar 17 04:52:36 UTC 2020

Hi all,

sharing here the response from Keith on behalf on GNSO council.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ---------
De : Drazek, Keith via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: mar. 17 mars 2020 à 06:55
Subject: Re: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council
Meeting and Next Steps
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>

Hi all,

Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion, both during our Council
meeting last week and here on the list.

While we do not have full agreement on a path forward, my sense is there is
broad recognition that the topic of RDS data accuracy is both important and
complex, and most believe it will require more time than is currently
available to the EPDP for its Phase 2 work on developing policy to support
the Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD). Further, while
the Priority 2 issues are included in the Phase 2 work plan, they are not
part of the critical path to delivery of the Phase 2 Final Report on the
SSAD.

With the 24 March deadline for publishing the addendum to the Initial
Report, I think the prudent course of action is to follow the proposal I
circulated below.

As such, I will respond to Janis and Rafik with guidance that the topic of
data accuracy should be deferred/decoupled from the work of the EPDP until
the Council can consider the issue further. Specifically, I will advise
that:

1.                   Council acknowledges the importance and complexity of
the topic, but also the time and resource constraints.

2.                   Council will discuss and consider possible next steps,
including establishing a small group/scoping team to establish a framework
to address the issue of registrant data accuracy across
policy/contracts/procedures. This scoping team would be similar to those
used to provide advice to Council on IDN Variants and Transfer Policy (both
of which will likely recommend PDP initiation).

3.                   Council to acknowledge the possible impact of the data
accuracy issue in the context of SSAD implementation and RDDS, and
recognize the need to prioritize accordingly.

4.                   Encourage the EPDP team to submit the pending legal
memo to help inform the work of any future scoping team. This should be
done as soon as reasonably possible to take advantage of the existing legal
and financial resources.

I’d like to note that Council could still decide to extend the work of the
EPDP to cover this issue, versus establishing a new group, but we simply
haven’t had that conversation yet.

I look forward to our continued discussion.

Thanks and regards,

Keith

*From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Drazek,
Keith via council
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:34 PM
*To:* council at gnso.icann.org
*Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up
from Council Meeting and Next Steps

Hi all,

As a follow-up to Rafik’s 6 March email (below) and our brief discussion
during yesterday’s Council meeting, I’d like to share my current thinking
and propose a path forward. If anyone has views to share, please do so now;
the EPDP Phase 2 Team needs our guidance in short order. I’ve done some
additional homework since yesterday’s call, so I hope I’ve captured
everything here accurately.

1.                 The issue of registrant data accuracy is an important
topic that deserves full and thorough consideration, including its impact
on GNSO policy, contracted party agreements, and other ICANN processes such
as ARS. As such, it is not only a policy issue, and there are likely
non-GDPR-specific factors that will need to be considered.

2.                 The EPDP Team Phase 1 Final Report Recommendation #4
said, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy
of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus
policies shall not be affected by this policy.” The ICANN Board approved
this recommendation without further guidance or comment.

3.                 There is not agreement within the EPDP on the meaning of
“data accuracy” in the context of GDPR. There is disagreement over whether
it is only from the perspective of the data subject or also third parties?
There was a legal memo received during Phase 1 on the topic of data
accuracy and a legal question was developed during Phase 2 to help clarify
the meaning, but it has not been submitted.

4.                 The charter for the EPDP did not specify or identify the
topic of data accuracy as within scope, but the EPDP Phase 1 final report
included a reference to data accuracy in footnote #24. That footnote said:
“The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be
considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.” This
footnote did not specify that such further consideration take place in
Phase 2, but the issue was included in the Phase 2 work plan that was
approved by the GNSO Council.

5.                 During Phase 1, the EPDP Team requested external legal
counsel guidance on the topic of accuracy in the context of GDPR, and
received the following summary answer: “In sum, because compliance with the
Accuracy Principle is based on a reasonableness standard, ICANN and the
relevant parties will be better placed to evaluate whether these procedures
are sufficient. From our vantage point, as the procedures do require
affirmative steps that will help confirm accuracy, unless there is reason
to believe these are insufficient, we see no clear requirement to review
them.”

6.                 There is not sufficient clarity at this time on how
existing accuracy requirements have been impacted by GDPR. As such, in
order to properly consider and scope further work on registrant data
accuracy, more discussion is needed among interested/impacted parties,
including ICANN Org.

7.                 The EPDP is scheduled to conclude its Phase 2 work in
June with its deliberations on priority 2 items, of which accuracy is one,
needing to complete by 24 March at the latest to be included in the Final
Report. Furthermore,  and there is no FY21 budget assigned for its
continuation beyond that time. Under these constraints (time, resources,
complexity), our ability to reach a policy solution in a couple of months
is highly unlikely if not impossible and could delay delivery of the Final
Report on SSAD which has been identified by basically everyone as priority
#1.

In light of the above, my recommended path forward for the Council and EPDP
is as follows:

1.                   Council acknowledge the importance and complexity of
the topic, but also the time and resource constraints noted above.

2.                   Council will discuss and consider possible next steps,
including establishing a small group/scoping team to establish a framework
to address the issue of registrant data accuracy across
policy/contracts/procedures.

3.                   Council to acknowledge the possible impact of the data
accuracy issue in the context of SSAD implementation and RDDS, and
recognize the need to prioritize accordingly.

4.                   Encourage the EPDP team to submit the pending legal
memo to help inform the work of any future scoping team.

I hope that strikes the right balance to ensure the work will be done,
while giving the community space and time to approach the issue
holistically and to carefully develop any needed policy recommendations.

I shared this with Rafik and Pam and we are in agreement.

We were asked to respond by Friday the 13th, but that doesn’t leave much
time for feedback, so please respond by 11:59 UTC on Monday 16 March. This
will allow us to deliver our reply to the EPDP Team prior to their Tuesday
call.

Thanks,

Keith

*From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak
*Sent:* Friday, March 6, 2020 6:32 PM
*To:* Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP

Hi all,

I am sending a request from EPDP team chair asking guidance from GNSO
council regarding WHOIS accuracy. There was disagreement within the EPDP
team if the topic is within scope or not. So we would like to get from
council guidance regarding its expectations on WHOIS accuracy issue in
phase 2 and if the EPDP team is expected to deliberate on it or not asap,
taking into account the GNSO council and ICANN org ongoing correspondence
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-05dec19-en.pdf>
on the matter.

The EPDP team chair asked that GNSO council can provide guidance by Friday
13th march so that the EPDP team will have time to receive further guidance
from the external legal council (if applicable). The time constraint can be
also explained  that EPDP team is currently deliberating priority 2 topics
during the initial report public comment period.

Best Regards,

Rafik

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
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/20200317/f7803bd4/attachment-0001.html>