August 2018 - Gnso-epdp-team

FW: Questions for ICANN Org from EPDP Team Meeting - 9 August 2018
by Marika Konings 13 Sep '18

13 Sep '18

For your information. The responses to these questions will be posted on the related wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ahppBQ. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 09:12 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, Erika Randall <erika.randall(a)icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb(a)icann.org>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Questions for ICANN Org from EPDP Team Meeting - 9 August 2018 Hi Marika, Please see below responses to the question from the 21 August meeting. Best, Trang ** QUESTION: Can an update be provided on the status of the reconfirmation of the Temporary Specification by the ICANN Board? Response: There is a board meeting planned for later today (21 August). No changes to the Temporary Specification are being proposed. RESPONSE: The Board reaffirmed<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-08-21-en> the Temporary Specification with no changes on 21 August 2018. QUESTION: Has the WHOIS Conflicts with local laws procedure been used and successfully used to date? Please indicate the instances where the procedure was invoked and the outcome. Were any specific issues identified with the use of this procedure? RESPONSE: The procedure was most recently invoked for .FRL in late 2017. However, the request was withdrawn prior to an outcome when .FRL agreed to comply with the requirements of the Temporary Specification. The request was withdrawn early on in the process so ICANN org had not conducted a formal review to identify specific issues with the procedure. The procedure was also previously attempted by .FRL in late 2016 but the request did not meet the requirements to utilize the procedure. At the time, requirement to trigger the procedure was that the contracted party must have received “notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action that might affect its compliance.” However, .FRL was not subject to any such proceeding at the time, and the procedure could not be used. QUESTION: Regarding data disclosures concerning LEA requests: does GDPR compel a report of those disclosures to be made to the data subject? Please provide analysis of “in-jurisdiction” and “out-of-jurisdiction” requests. RESPONSE: The latest Draft Framework for a Possible Unified Access Model for Continued Access to Full WHOIS Data – For Discussion<Draft%20Framework%20for%20a%20Possible%20Unified%20Access%20Model%20for%20Continued%20Access%20to%20Full%20WHOIS%20Data%20–%20For%20Discussion> addresses the question of “whether or not logs of query activities concerning non-public data must be available to the registrant upon request except if prohibited by a relevant court order or legal requirement.” Please refer to Section 8 of the draft framework for more information on this topic. The draft framework is published for community discussion and to seek guidance from the European Data Protection Board. With a better understanding of the law, we will all be well positioned to develop, implement and enforce a legally sound, consistent unified model for access to non-public registration data, and lower the risk for the contracted parties in order for them to be able to accept such model.

5 4

Factual studies starting to shoot down the "going dark" panic
by Mueller, Milton L 06 Sep '18

06 Sep '18

Relevant to the work of this group is the following study from Recorded Future. https://www.recordedfuture.com/gdpr-spam-impact/?utm_content=76363539&utm_m… Entitled "90 Days of GDPR: Minimal Impact on Spam and Domain Registration" Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>

6 11

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Request for Adobe Access (Read-only) for Alternates
by Alan Greenberg 05 Sep '18

05 Sep '18

I support Kristina's proposal. The graphics displayed can be important. Alan At 13/08/2018 04:29 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team wrote: >All, > >On behalf of the RySG, Im writing to request >that EPDP Alternates be granted read-only access >to the Adobe Connect room. We are finding that, >without access to the Adobe room, it is >difficult for the Alternates to follow the >meeting fully, to assist Members during the >meeting, and to prepare for direct participation (when doing so for a Member). > >If it would be possible for us to add this >request to our agenda for tomorrow (as an AOB), >the RySG would appreciate it. I apologize for >the short notice, but I had drafted another >version of this email on Friday, where it got stuck in my pre-vacation Outbox. > >Thank you. > >Kristina > >Kristina Rosette >Senior Corporate Counsel, IP Domains ><mailto:rosettek@amazon.com>rosettek(a)amazon.com | 703.407.1354 > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-epdp-team mailing list >Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

3 3

Section 4 of Temp Spec.
by Kavouss Arasteh 02 Sep '18

02 Sep '18

Dear Kurt Dear All Thanks to those who have generously volunteered to look st Section 4 , in particular, certain sub paragraph of that section as well as corresponding parts of Appendix C Having said that I wish to emphasise that it is nit expected to receive new draft from scratch ( total redrafting ) but merely suggesting necessary amendments to the existing text to maintain the relative consistency with the initial documents In addition, the distinguished drafter need to take into account comments already received in TIRAGE from. Various stakeholder groups and ACs as well as those expressed during the discussion( transcriptions, recordings and chats Moreover, it is absolutely necessary to avoid overlapping, repetitions and double application as may contained in other sub paragraphs drafted by others. Some sort of coordination thus nay be required. These suggested drafts should possibly made available 48 hours before the Thursday ( 11th ) meeting which needs to be seen by Kurt before . Agenda of the next meeting should be limited to certain specific issue and not discussing various points at the same time. Attention of respectful drafters are drawn to the fact that several adjectives or terms used which are required to be clearly defined to facilitate the implementation of the suggested / modified sub paragraphs This was raised st various instances and raised by some sub teams Best regards Kavouss

4 5

Pre-emptive request for our consideration of Appendix D&E
by Alan Woods 31 Aug '18

31 Aug '18

Dear Kurt and team, In advance of our substantive discussions on the elements of the RPMs within the Temp Spec (Appendix D and E), in the interests of not delaying our deliberations at that time, I believe it prudent for the EPDP team to have the opportunity to review the agreements that ICANN has with the RPM providers, (or at least the Data Processing Agreements), so as to fully consider all safeguards in place, thus tipping the balance in favor of disclosure of the data to the RPM providers. As we already indicated in our triage response, we generally have no issue with the appendix (notwithstanding some process changes on the RPM review side being likely necessary). This does not absolve us however from fully considering the data flow, to confirm the appendices. Our task should be to do a thorough assessment of the required disclosure; documenting the purpose and legal basis for the disclosure; the safeguards applicable to the disclosure; and, in this case, complete our a consideration of the balance of the data subject rights. As the contracted parties do not maintain a direct contractual relationship with any RPM provider, we will therefore need to consider the applicable data processing agreement, to confirm how that data will ultimately be processed by the RPM provider (i.e. drawing inspiration from those elements required under Art 28 of the GDPR - Data Processor Requirements). This will allow for our transparent and well rounded consideration of the data flow, the safeguards in place, leading to a strong outcome for the EPDP consideration of the appendices. As such, I would request that, in the interests of time, the EPDP now requests sight of the relevant documents (whether that be the full agreement or the applicable data processing agreements) from ICANN so that we can duly consider it in the assessment of the appendices when we arrive at that point, in the hopes of moving swiftly along. Kind regards, Alan Woods [image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains> Alan Woods Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ The Victorians, 15-18 Earlsfort Terrace Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Responses to early input request
by Marika Konings 31 Aug '18

31 Aug '18

Note that early input from the NCSG has just been received as well and has been posted on the same page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 14:48 To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Responses to early input request For your information, in response to the request for early input, a response was received from the SSAC. Their response, and any further input that may be received has been posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ag9pBQ. Staff will make sure to update the background documents section on the wiki with the documents referenced in the SSAC response. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

2 1

Suggestion to facilitate writing and review replacement language for Section 4.4
by Mark Svancarek (CELA) 31 Aug '18

31 Aug '18

Dear Kurt and Team: To get us started on the daunting task of drafting replacement language for Section 4.4 of the Temp Spec, we propose to split the processing topics of section 4.4 into categories which parallel the structure of GDPR. The two processing categories we propose are: 1. Those which support the purposes of controllers and others related to the performance of their contracts (registrars, registries, and ICANN) 2. Those which support the purposes of third parties under applicable legal grounds (performance of contract, consent, and legitimate interest) Some items in Section 4.4 of the existing Temp Spec will apply to both categories; some will apply to only one. Even when an item applies to both categories, we propose to discuss the appropriate language separately and in the context of the specific category only. By removing conflation of purposes between parties, this split will facilitate discussion and lead to a more productive drafting process. Further discussion will determine whether ICANN needs to be uniquely broken into its own third category, or whether this two-way split will suffice. A "strawman" breakdown is as follows: Section of existing Temp Spec Processing to achieve the purposes of Controllers Processing to achieve the purposes of Third Parties 4.4.1 Yes - 4.4.2 Yes Yes 4.4.3 Yes Yes 4.4.4 Yes - 4.4.5 Yes Yes 4.4.6 Yes - 4.4.7 Yes - 4.4.8 Yes Yes 4.4.9 Yes Yes 4.4.10 Yes Yes 4.4.11 Yes - 4.4.12 Yes Yes 4.4.13 Yes - /marksv

1 0

FW: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Releases its Second Report on Global Legislative and Regulatory Developments
by Marika Konings 31 Aug '18

31 Aug '18

For your information. From: ICANN News Alert <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Reply-To: "no-reply(a)external.icann.org" <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 17:46 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Releases its Second Report on Global Legislative and Regulatory Developments [ICANN][icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ…> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-08-30-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> ________________________________ ICANN Releases its Second Report on Global Legislative and Regulatory Developments 30 August 2018 ISTANBUL - 30 August 2018 - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) published today the second report [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> [PDF, 214 KB] l highlighting a limited list of recent and pending legislative and regulatory initiatives on privacy/data protection and cybersecurity across the world. The report is a continuation of the initiative launched earlier this April, to identify legislative efforts across the globe early-on to raise awareness within ICANN and consider potential impacts, including how these legislative initiatives may have unintended consequences, which may be avoided. As a result of the community discussions over the past year or so leading up to the GDPR going into full effect, ICANN CEO and President Göran Marby committed to identify key legislative efforts around the globe while in their earlier stages. To this end, ICANN org initiated [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> reporting efforts on global legislative and regulatory developments during the third quarter of FY18. The first report [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> [PDF, 97 KB] was a limited list of some recent legislative and regulatory initiatives around the world that relate to privacy/data protection and cybersecurity issues and that could impact ICANN's mission, operations or issues within ICANN's remit. It was the first product of a realization that ICANN, as both an org and a community, must pay closer attention to potential legislative efforts of interest across the world. The initial report received wide attention with a viewership of over six hundred unique visits. The community feedback on the report was positive, which paved the way for the continuation of the report on a quarterly basis. We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has reviewed and provided feedback on the first report. We look forward to hearing from you about any high-impact developments in the e-privacy and cybersecurity ecosystem that should be tracked in future reports. You can send your comments and/or information about new developments in your region to trackingfeedback(a)icann.org<mailto:trackingfeedback@icann.org>. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique, so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with participants from all over the world. Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.icontact.com_icp_mm…> This message was sent to marika.konings(a)icann.org from no-reply(a)external.icann.org ICANN News Alert ICANN 12025 Waterfront DriveSuite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [iContact - Try it for FREE][icontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icontact.com_signu…>

1 0

Notes and action items from today's EPDP Team Meeting - 30 August 2018
by Caitlin Tubergen 31 Aug '18

31 Aug '18

Dear All, Below, please find notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team Call. As a reminder, our next meeting will be Tuesday, 4 September, 13:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin EPDP Team Meeting #9 Thursday, 30 August 2018 High-Level Notes and Action Items Regarding progress on the Purposes for Processing Data: Registrars will rewrite section 4.4 to align the purposes for data processing with current data collection processes and the domain name lifecycle. It is requested that the draft be completed in time for the meeting on Tuesday, 4 Sept so that the rest of the team can review it. For sections 4.4.2, 4.4.8 and 4.4.9, it was agreed to take those purposes for accessing data out from under the heading, “Purposes for Processing Data” and place it in another section of the Policy that is being developed. The Support Team will recommend alternatives for identifying those access needs in the new Policy in time for the 4 September meeting. The support team will facilitate the creation of a team to consider a re-drafting of section 4.4.8. Several team members volunteered to participate, and Alex Deacon and Amr Elsadr volunteered to lead. The Support Team will develop the time requirements for this team to finish its work, taking into account the project plan and delivery requirements. The team will have a “narrow remit,” i.e., to draft the purpose for data disclosure for the reasons set out in section 4.4.8. Regarding other sub-sections of 4.4 the following team members offered to propose revised language for the below-mentioned sections: § 4.4 (introductory paragraph): Alex Deacon § 4.4.2: Amr Elsadr § 4.4.9: Ashley Heineman, Kavouss Arasteh Regarding Appendix C, Data Processing Requirements: Alan Woods will provide a draft recommendation to ICANN that the subject matter be taken out from consideration by this group and folded into current CPH-ICANN negotiations regarding registration data elements of the RAA and RA. This writing should address Margie’s intervention that certain elements of Appendix C remain under the purview of this group, e.g., Disclosure of non-public RDDS/WHOIS to third parties. Additionally, Alex Deacon will compose amendments to Appendix C, section 2, Lawfulness of Processing, that includes all GDPR mechanisms that allow processing of data. Other items: Support Team to adapt Thomas’s spreadsheet to aid in future discussion of data elements. We will also re-affirm the timing of this discussion to ensure it is prioritized. Question for ICANN Org: Language in the preamble is similar but different from the GDPR. What was the thinking in writing it this way? Notes These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/2IpHBQ. 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking, and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team. 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair Triage report - planning to create an updated, truncated version of the report to be distributed shortly Please ensure that any chat during the meeting is relevant to the discussion and does not distract from the speaker. 3. Review proposed next steps and action items on 4.4 a. Consider any input form the EPDP team that would include specific recommendation for amendments to the temporary specification for: 1. Registrar / Registry / ICANN processing of data: clarifying the elements proposed in the ICANN-developed specification 2. Third party processing where more specificity was requested At the end of the preamble, some suggested the text, "and only for the following legitimate purposes", may be unduly restrictive because of (1) potential new privacy laws in the future; and (2) updated advice from courts/DPAs. Accordingly, a proposed tweak may be, "and for legitimate interests not outweighed by the fundamental rights of relevant data subjects, consistent with GDPR." Feedback from EPDP Team: The point of the comment is when only focusing on legitimate interests, we are leaving out other lawful processing described in Article 6(1) of the GDPR - such as 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c), and 6(1)(f). Action item: Alex to propose updated language. Problem with 4.4.2 and 4.4.8 and 4.4.9 is that this is an access issue, not an ICANN purpose issue. The legitimate interest list is trying to incorporate third party legitimate interests into purpose definitions. If you try to accommodate access concerns by incorporating this into ICANN purposes, this is making the conflation DPAS explicitly warned against. Accordingly, this needs to be separated. If these sections are not in the correct part of the Temp Spec, where would these sections go? These sections appropriately belong in the access section. Clarifying question: we transitioned out of the welcome message into the substantive discussion. We are beginning on a wording issue, seemingly based on triage comments. What is the objective here? Are we trying to edit 4.4 and 4.4.2? This was an experiment is see if the language was an easy fix the team could agree to. It appears we are commingling purposes and legitimate interests for access, and we can explore separating these sections. We cannot provide access later, unless we have the data to start with. We may need to lower the rhetoric -- comments like "we will never agree to something" is unhelpful for forward progress. When we speak of data processing, we do not have to go through what a legitimate interest is. For data processing, we need to come up with what we mean by data processing at this stage. Are we talking about data collection? If so, this needs to be very narrowly defined - it needs to be based on ICANN's mission and purpose. Re: Thomas' email which mentions slicing and dicing, there are paths to obtain information. We must remember that payment information is collected for other registrar/registry purposes. We have to make a distinction making access to the data separate. We should focus now on collecting/processing of the data, and put access aside for now. We may need to add a few qualifiers to the text, such as ICANN's legal basis for processing this data. When we’re looking at bylaws references in the Temp Spec and any successor, we need to look at what the bylaws actually say and what they mean. This entire section appears to be hastily written. We might consider rewriting this from scratch, rather than tweaking current language. In the previous meeting and here, we need to bifurcate the sections in 4.4 et. seq. and create the first list for data processing for Ry/Rr. In reading through the triage comments, registrars frequently objected to this section, as there is a set of data collected for the purpose of dealing with the registrant, and this list may not be the correct list for dealing with these issues. Instead, we might consider rewriting this entire section to better align with Ry/Rr purposes. Kurt asked contracted parties to come up with a better way of looking at this type of data. Action item: Registrars to to rewrite section 4.4 in an attempt to align the text with actual business practices. The Temp Spec was written as a reaction to GDPR. It’s not written as policy recommendations. The intent here was to bolt on GDPR compliance to the existing system. Taking what is there and redlining it will be an unsuccessful endeavor. The starting point here is to make sure the entire group has a common understanding of what it means to deliver the service of a domain name registration to a registrant, as that will be the starting point of the purposes. There may be other purposes involved, but the first purpose is the delivery of the service of a domain name registration to a registrant. What clarification or direction is needed from the EPDP team for registrars to move forward with a conversation with your stakeholder group? Registrars will put pen to paper and circulate to the group. Perhaps we do not start with purposes, we start with what it means to deliver the service to avoid the problems the RDS group experienced. Re: ICANN Contractual Compliance, what does this mean, and what activities are involved? Like a third party, ICANN would have to demonstrate a legal basis to access this information. ICANN is a data controller, and ICANN collects data from contracted parties based on the RA and RAA. ICANN just needs to vet out their purposes and their legal basis to access this information. ICANN has solid purposes, but they need to be clear in what those purposes are. ICANN as a controller and as a party to the contract has a performance of contract purpose that is under GDPR. It is written in the bylaws and a commitment ICANN made during the transition. It is inappropriate to limit what ICANN can get access to for the purposes of enforcing the contract. We talked about whether ICANN has access to the data, and I believe the Temp Spec took away ICANN’s right to thick WHOIS, but only thin WHOIS. The Temp Spec did remove thick data transition, but that data is part and parcel of our discussions. There is still disagreement over § 4.4.8. This data disclosure does not belong under the purposes. Should the group rewrite these access questions? Where in our policy should these sections go so that we can preserve this right away? One option would be to move it to Appendix A, Section 4. Thinking about earlier comments, we may want to consider using a tool such as Thomas’s spreadsheet or concrete input from Rys/Rrs, and other groups would assist in drafting something so that when we come together next time, we are focused on specifics. The spreadsheet deals with data elements that support each purpose. Thoughts on path forward – flesh out purposes of data processing first and then identify data required to fulfill those purposes. If we can get the feedback from the RrSG to furnish the aforementioned homework quickly, we can move to the discussion on data elements shortly. Action: Alex as lead to clarify 4.4 Action: GAC as lead to rewrite section 4.4.9 We do not have a framework for investigation of cybercrime. We do have an obligation to support investigation of cybercrime, but it is not our framework, and this is an overreach in Section 4.4.8. This needs to be separated out and reworded. This discussion appears to be jumping around a bit. How are we going to reach a final product? Our end goal here is policy recommendations. Ad hoc debate of various sections of the temp spec may not help us reach our end goal. We’re talking about Section 4.4 today because we agreed to talk about purposes for processing first. However, we can use a spreadsheet as a tool to have a concrete discussion about data. To close this out, for third party uses of data, does anyone think these need to be adjusted? 4. Begin discussion on Appendix C For each section, we will refer to the Triage survey and meeting comments as a guide for considering to amend the specification section. We might then form a rough consensus for the content of edits and assign a small team (1-3) people to create a revised version for the next meeting. Breaking the Appendix into its parts: a. Preamble EPDP Team Feedback: Appendix C includes a chart which includes gTLD processing activities We can guide the discussion of what was capture in the triage EPDP Team Feedback: Amend the preamble, then amend the table. Take these in order. In reference to the preamble, some of the comments note that restating the GDPR (but not precisely) is not helpful. Should this match the GDPR, or should it be removed? Question for ICANN Org: Language in the preamble is similar but different from the GDPR. What was the thinking in writing it this way? Perhaps this should be handed back to ICANN Legal for review – send the chart back to ICANN and have that married with the other discussion on what other processing needs to take place. Should this be examined with the domain name lifecycle as a reference? When you put a point on discussion in the debate, it would be helpful to have one or two leads to put pen to paper and then share with the group for discussion. b. gTLD Processor Activity Chart c. Section 1 (Principles for Processing) Section 2 (Lawfulness of Processing) EPDP Team Feedback: Should the reference to applicable laws and regulations be removed? Should Section 1 in principles for processing might include principles from GDPR other than 6.6? Should it reference data principles more broadly? In Section 2, should there be an LEA carve out for the balancing test? Should we go back once we have agreed upon legitimate interests, should we go do an Article 4 code of conduct referral? How do we move this forward? Should we post these questions online and ask for responses? Proposal to change each controller “shall observe” instead of “will observe” On Section 2, it focuses on legitimate process and does not include other lawful purpose, so it needs to be changed similar to Section 4. The LEA carve out could then be removed. We have to have a discussion on the critical part – we are allowed to consider the needs of others if we have a justification. Are we allowed to look at others’ needs in WHOIS or not? There seems to be a copy/paste of Article 28 of the GDPR. This should be a suggestion to the GNSO that it should be added to the contract, not in here. This is a contractual matter and should not be in the policy. The feedback is not that we not consider other legitimate interest, but rather, to not conflate the legitimate interests of third parties with ICANN’s purposes. This Appendix may not be necessary once the agreement is re-negotiated with the contracted parties, though certain elements may still be necessary. It is not that we cannot consider third party interests, it is that they should not be conflated with ICANN’s interests. The fact that we take third party interests in the data into consideration does not mean that we collect data with third party interests in mind. Cooperation is the key here. · d. Deliberate on Sections 3.1, 3.1.1 – 3.1.6 (Specific Controller Processing requirements) e. Deliberate on 3.2 – 3.11 (Specific Controller Processing requirements) Discuss next steps for dealing with input on Appendix C 5. Confirm action items and questions for ICANN Org, if any Question for ICANN Org: Language in the preamble is similar but different from the GDPR. What was the thinking in writing it this way? 6. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Tuesday 4 September at 13.00 UTC.

3 4

Recordings, Attendance & AC chat from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP held Thursday, 30 August 2018
by Andrea Glandon 30 Aug '18

30 Aug '18

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email. The MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call held on Thursday, 30 August 2018 at 13:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-30aug18… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7roeo6r513/<https://participate.icann.org/p7roeo6r513/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1878425a032e0b15…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0