Thanks, Rafik RySG would prefer Option 2 (it will allow for sustainable community efforts and it does not mean these issues should not appear in the Phase II Final Report). As we understand: 1. Legal v natural - This matter has already been subject to a recommendation in Phase 1 that confirmed the Temp Spec. 2. Feasibility of anonymized/unique contacts - Legal advice received and subsequent discussions of the EPDP team relating to this, did indicate that anonymized contacts would continue to be considered a publication of PII. 3. Accuracy - The legal memos requested and received by the EPDP team have concluded that Accuracy (insofar as it relates to the GDPR and data privacy expectations) is deemed sufficient. The Items mentioned in the letter were discussed in full, not reaching consensus does not mean that the items were not properly worked on. P.s: nothing prevents creation of community policy efforts devoted to those items as normal GNSO PDPs. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 23 Jun 2020, at 19:46, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote:
Thanks for this, Rafik.
The BC would prefer Option 3; dealing with as much as possible within the (to be) extended EPDP period and then a rapid scoping and chartering of a new group (preferably including as many of the expert EPDP Team as possible to ensure continuity) for the remaining issues.
Further, we agree with your recommendation that the EPDP be reset “to allow for further consideration and completion of the charter to address the following two topics: 1) legal vs natural persons and 2) Feasibility of unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address. A specific timeline (e.g. 3 months) after reconvening should be set for the EPDP Team to report back to determine the likelihood of consensus emerging on these topics. Note, if no consensus can be found for Consensus Policy recommendations, the EPDP Team could also consider guidance or best practices to Contracted Parties for these topics based on its consideration of these topics. Based on the feedback from the EPDP Team, the Council would decide whether further time would be granted to the EPDP Team to complete its work or whether termination of the EPDP would be in order.”
We also strongly support the creation – as soon as possible - of “a scoping team to further consider the topic of accuracy” to “identify what specific issues, if any, need to be addressed in relation to accuracy and identify the best path for addressing these issues”.
Best Marie
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 3:01 PM To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Proposal for framework of next steps for EPDP
Hi all,
As follow-up of action item from the last council meeting, I am sending here a framework document to identify the list of topics (e.g., accuracy, legal vs. natural and other remainder items from the EPDP) and outline possible next steps for GNSO Council to consider. Looking forward tour feedback.
Best Regards,
Rafik _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.