Hi Keith, Trust all goes well, and that you and yours stay well in these... interesting times. We wanted to correct the record regarding your characterization of the UAM on the September 3, 2020 Council call. To paraphrase, it sounded like you said that European guidance precluded the EPDP from developing a centralized/UAM-style SSAD. On the contrary, the Belgian DPA merely wrote that "...it is not possible to make a determination"[1] based only on the level of detail in ICANN's UAM proposal. The Belgian DPA clarified that policy questions around "who gets access to what, and under what conditions, for how long, as well as other relevant safeguards"[2] are "extremely important when assessing whether the model which is ultimately developed complies with the requirements of GDPR."[3] To eliminate any remaining doubt, after the EPDP team misinterpreted this letter as decrying the UAM, the Belgian DPA explicitly clarified its position during its February 14, 2020 meeting[4] with ICANN staff. Göran Marby, President and CEO of ICANN, reported from that meeting: With respect to the possibility of developing a centralized model that is GDPR-compliant, the representatives said that the letter from the Belgian DPA was intended as encouragement to continue efforts to develop a comprehensive system for access. They said that the letter was not meant to deter the development of a centralized model. Rather, the Belgian DPA's representatives said a centralized model is worth exploring and it seems to be a better, "common sense" option in terms of security and for data subjects.[5] As a final example, the Bird & Bird memo to the EPDP on automation and centralized decision-making noted that the scenario presented where ICANN makes disclosure decisions centrally "offers least risk of liability to CPs."[6] So, while rejecting a centralized/UAM model may have been a policy preference for some parties, it was not an inevitable outcome. We hope this clarifies any potential misunderstanding, including if it was our misunderstanding that your statements concluded that the EPDP was blocked from developing a centralized UAM. Best, Scott & Marie [1] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/stevens-to-marby-04dec1... [1] Id. [1] Id. [1] https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-meets-with-belgian-data-protection-aut... [1] Id. [1] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111388744/ICANN_Automation%... (Section 6.2.2.(a)) Marie Pattullo Senior Trade Marks and Brand Protection Manager [cid:image001.png@01D48358.C5A0D6C0] European Brands Association Avenue des Gaulois 9 · 1040 Brussels<https://www.google.com/maps?q=9+avenue+des+Gaulois+%0D%0AB-1040++Brussels&en...> · Belgium T: +32 2 736 03 05 M: +32 496 610 395 E: marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be> W: www.aim.be<http://www.aim.be/> EU Transparency Register: 1074382679-01<http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist...> [LinkedIn icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/aim---european-brands-association/> [Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/AIMbrands> ________________________________ [1] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/stevens-to-marby-04dec1... [2] Id. [3] Id. [4] https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-meets-with-belgian-data-protection-aut... [5] Id. [6] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111388744/ICANN_Automation%... (Section 6.2.2.(a))
