May 2019 - Gnso-epdp-team - lists.icann.org

For your review - work sheets work stream 2 topics
by Marika Konings 15 May '19

15 May '19

Dear EPDP Team, To facilitate your review and input on the scope, expected deliverable, legal questions, required reading, briefings to be provided, dependencies, proposed timing and approach for the topics in phase 2, the staff support team has prepared the following work sheets for work stream 2 topics: * Display of information of affiliated vs. accredited privacy / proxy providers: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1izpX2C-RrfAdRgRDwBO9tQuJIBA9Xt38p1MTJgQ… * Legal vs natural persons: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vEetjWuRlf2uvCCUREHf9G7ac5z2hk_sgGiOSJC… * City field redaction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdtRLaNm5DiWR_EPei4Oi64FaDauIXEQhnF2Lm_… * Data retention: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xlw1N7omlgPKjag_FnOy03NRvByol8IaJma5zNP… * Potential OCTO Purpose: https://docs.google.com/document/d/174PSGgWB-UTTcqIA-NndIVDkP6WR701tzwjDsoz… * Feasibility of unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1meyuNRsq4sMOI6pefJk4jZevaKUsTkVf8_XyW1t… Following Thursday’s meeting, staff will also update the worksheet for work stream 1. The worksheets are expected to form the basis for the development of a detailed work plan so please make sure to review these and provide your group’s input by using the comment or suggestion mode. 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #2 Thursday 16 May at 14.00 UTC
by Marika Konings 14 May '19

14 May '19

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 May at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #2 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (10 minutes) a. Bilateral meetings of the Chair to date b. ICANN65 Travel Support (Marika) (see https://community.icann.org/x/6hdIBg) c. Confirmation of immediate resources (Rafik) (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chalaby-to-drazek-et-al-06may19-en…) 4. Review and discussion of draft approach for phase 2 (45 minutes) (Chair): 1. Review draft approach (see attached, with minor updates in red to reflect input received) 2. Each group to provide their input on the draft approach (what, why and how things could or should be done different) i. RySG ii. RrSG iii. IPC iv. BC v. ISPCP vi. NCSG vii. GAC viii. ALAC ix. SSAC x. Board liaisons xi. ICANN Org liaisons 1. Confirm agreements and, if applicable, areas that need to be reviewed 2. Confirm next steps & action items 5. Discuss required step of “soliciting of statements from GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies” (5 minutes) (Marika) 6. Workstream 2 Worksheets (10 minutes) (Chair) * Confirm latest status * Confirm deadline for review and input 7. Review of clarifying questions received in relation to legal memos (10 minutes) * Review clarifying questions received * Confirm next steps 8. Any other business 9. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 23 May at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) * Confirm action items * Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

3 2

Zoom Drop In Training
by Andrea Glandon 13 May '19

13 May '19

Dear all, On Monday, 20 May 2019 we will have a Zoom room available from 13:00-15:00 UTC for members to join, explore the room/features and have a support staff member available to answer questions. Please feel free to join at any time during the above 2 hour time frame. Attached you will also find a ics attachment for your calendar. If you have questions about this training, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org https://icann.zoom.us/my/gnso.pdp1 One tap mobile +19294362866,,3107952819# US (New York) +16699006833,,3107952819# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 310 795 2819 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_u_acwzlz1QoY&d…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Zoom Drop In Training
by ICANN Policy Calendar 13 May '19

13 May '19

On Monday, 20 May 2019 we will have a Zoom room available from 13:00-15:00 UTC for members to join, explore the room/features and have a support staff member available to answer questions. Please feel free to join at any time during the above 2 hour time frame. If you have questions about this training, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org https://icann.zoom.us/my/gnso.pdp1 One tap mobile +19294362866,,3107952819# US (New York) +16699006833,,3107952819# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 310 795 2819 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_u_acwzlz1QoY&d…> Thank you. Andrea Glandon

1 0

Response to 1 May letter re. collaboration with EPDP Team
by Marika Konings 10 May '19

10 May '19

Sending on behalf of Janis Karklins, EPDP Team Phase 2 Chair Dear Göran, Thank you very much for your letter dated 1 May 2019. The EPDP Team had a first exchange of views during its meeting on 2 May concerning your request for the EPDP Team to identify “a small number of representatives who, on behalf of the EPDP Team, would work with ICANN org, to move forward these discussions” on the Unified Access Model (UAM) based on the model proposed by the Technical Study Group (TSG) with the European Commission and Data Protection Authorities. During the discussion, no objections were raised, though some reservations were voiced. Therefore, before being able to respond to your request, the EPDP Team would like to ask you for some further information in relation to your expectations regarding, amongst others: * What is the expected scope of work of the small group and could examples of the types of questions / issues the group is expected to work on be provided? * Size of the group when you refer to ‘a small number’, factoring in that the EPDP Team has a representative composition, as well as desired expertise; * Expected mode of operation for this work with ICANN Org, what does collaboration look like? – from the EPDP Team’s side there is an expectation that there would be full transparency around these discussions as well as engagement with the European Commission and Data Protection Authorities; * Time commitment and duration – what is the expected time commitment for this collaboration and is there any indication of when this work is expected to conclude? In the meantime, taking into account tonality of e-mail exchange among the Team members and aware that constitution of the small group may consume too much time, I proposed to the Team to use a plenary format for engagement with ICANN Org on topics under consideration. As the EPDP Team is eager to move forward with its planning for phase 2, we hope that you can provide us with a response in time for further consideration during the EPDP Team’s next meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 16 May. I look forward to your response. Janis Karklins EPDP Team Phase 2 Chair 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Fwd: [council] ICANN Board Response to GNSO Council Request for EPDP Phase 2 Resources
by Marika Konings 09 May '19

09 May '19

For your information, see below. Begin forwarded message: From: "Drazek, Keith via council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Date: 08 May 2019 at 20:14:06 GMT-6 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] ICANN Board Response to GNSO Council Request for EPDP Phase 2 Resources Reply-To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Hi all, The ICANN Board has responded favorably to the Council request for additional resources in support of the EPDP Phase 2 work. The letter is here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-drazek-et-a… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> Regards, Keith _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

1 0

For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby
by Marika Konings 08 May '19

08 May '19

Dear EPDP Team, On behalf of Janis, per the action item from our last meeting, please find attached the proposed response to Göran in relation to this letter (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/marby-to-…). Please share any comments you may have by Wednesday 8 May at the latest. 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

10 11

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach
by Mueller, Milton L 08 May '19

08 May '19

Hi, Looks like Janis and staff have been busy! I have a question about Slide 7. There are no “X’s” or ticks in the columns for WS 1 and WS 2. So I can’t tell what this means. Are we proposing (I hope) that WS1 meets on Tuesdays and WS2 meets on Thursdays? Or is this still open-ended? --MM From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 2:07 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach Sending on behalf of Janis Karklins Dear EPDP Team, Following last week’s meeting, the leadership team and staff support have worked together on developing a draft approach for tackling phase 2. We hope this strikes a balance between the different views expressed and will form the basis for a detailed work plan with concrete milestones and deliverables. You will find attached a couple of slides that outline our current thinking in further detail, but here are some points I want to emphasize: * This is a draft approach for discussion and review. Based on your input prior and our discussion during next week’s meeting, we will further iterate and detail our approach, the proposed work plan and accompanying timeline. This draft is for discussion that, hopefully, will lead to a consensual agreement. * For the purpose of our exercise it is important to use definitions and terminology with the same understanding. We propose to develop and use working definitions without prejudice to consensual outcome. Final definitions can only be developed once the Team has finalized its work and agreed on its recommendations. * Based on the Team’s feedback in relation to the request to form a small team to engage with ICANN Org, I suggest to keep a plenary setting which will avoid creating a separate structure and ensure that everyone is part of discussion. Nevertheless, as this work on obtaining legal certainty is ongoing, I would propose that we deal with the charter questions and list of issues identified on slide 5 in an agnostic manner. In other words, we should refrain at the outset to deliberate on whether or not a System for Standardized Disclosure should be centralized or not, but rather we should focus on the commonalities and where needed identify that differentiation may be required depending on which model is ultimately determined to be legally compliant with GDPR and workable. I also expect that this approach would help inform the engagement of ICANN org and DPAs. * I appreciate that some of you may consider the timeline ambitious, but I’ve heard from almost everyone that the work on a System for Standardized Disclosure is a priority and as such I am committed to setting a target date for us to work towards. This will require your support and dedication. I am pretty confident I can count on that. I look forward to receiving your feedback and would like to encourage you to focus your input on what, why and how things could or should be done differently, instead of simply saying that something cannot be acceptable or should not be done. Janis Karklins 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

For your review - Phase 2 Draft Approach
by Marika Konings 08 May '19

08 May '19

Sending on behalf of Janis Karklins Dear EPDP Team, Following last week’s meeting, the leadership team and staff support have worked together on developing a draft approach for tackling phase 2. We hope this strikes a balance between the different views expressed and will form the basis for a detailed work plan with concrete milestones and deliverables. You will find attached a couple of slides that outline our current thinking in further detail, but here are some points I want to emphasize: * This is a draft approach for discussion and review. Based on your input prior and our discussion during next week’s meeting, we will further iterate and detail our approach, the proposed work plan and accompanying timeline. This draft is for discussion that, hopefully, will lead to a consensual agreement. * For the purpose of our exercise it is important to use definitions and terminology with the same understanding. We propose to develop and use working definitions without prejudice to consensual outcome. Final definitions can only be developed once the Team has finalized its work and agreed on its recommendations. * Based on the Team’s feedback in relation to the request to form a small team to engage with ICANN Org, I suggest to keep a plenary setting which will avoid creating a separate structure and ensure that everyone is part of discussion. Nevertheless, as this work on obtaining legal certainty is ongoing, I would propose that we deal with the charter questions and list of issues identified on slide 5 in an agnostic manner. In other words, we should refrain at the outset to deliberate on whether or not a System for Standardized Disclosure should be centralized or not, but rather we should focus on the commonalities and where needed identify that differentiation may be required depending on which model is ultimately determined to be legally compliant with GDPR and workable. I also expect that this approach would help inform the engagement of ICANN org and DPAs. * I appreciate that some of you may consider the timeline ambitious, but I’ve heard from almost everyone that the work on a System for Standardized Disclosure is a priority and as such I am committed to setting a target date for us to work towards. This will require your support and dedication. I am pretty confident I can count on that. I look forward to receiving your feedback and would like to encourage you to focus your input on what, why and how things could or should be done differently, instead of simply saying that something cannot be acceptable or should not be done. Janis Karklins 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Observations on the EC Letter Shared Today
by Margie Milam 06 May '19

06 May '19

Dear all: I appreciate the perspectives shared so far. From a high level, the EC letters are very helpful for us to arrive at some conclusions. Let me share some thoughts from the BC. First, there’s little in today’s letter that’s new. In fact, it’s repetitious, as the author points out. Prior communications from the EC shows they’ve advised that: * A solution to non-public data access must be a priority, and an immediate one. * The EC supports an access model, provided it is within the bounds of GDPR law. * The current “no access” situation is degrading the ability of LEAs, cybersecurity authorities and others to perform in their roles; thus, the need for a speedy solution. * Access by Law Enforcement uses a different basis than 6(1)f and should be treated differently than other types of 3rd party access. * No conflation should be made between ICANN’s purposes and those of third parties (e.g., ICANN’s purposes can’t be used by others to justify access – a separate legitimate purpose is required). * WHOIS is in the public interest. These points were made in the previous communications from the EC, and are now echoed in today’s letter. From the perspective of the BC, the themes in today’s letter are familiar: * We need an access model quickly. According to the letter: …we have constantly urged ICANN and the community to develop a unified access model that applies to all registries and registrars and provides a stable, predictable, and workable method for accessing non-public gTLD registration data for users with a legitimate interest or other legal basis as provided for in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).The European Commission considers this to be both vital and urgent, and we urge ICANN and the community to develop and implement a pragmatic and workable access model in the shortest timeframe possible, to which we will contribute actively. and Your understanding is correct that we do not suggest that ICANN or the contracted parties should not be able to disclose registration data to third parties. On the contrary, finding a timely and workable solution for access to non-public gTLD registration data is a matter of priority. * Don’t conflate purposes, and don’t unnecessarily restrict definition of ICANN’s purposes. A simple fix here is to split Purpose 2 into two purposes, where one focuses on ICANN’s purpose, and the second one focuses on the third party purposes allowable under GDPR. * A unified system for third party access, for multiple parties, is necessary. The EC letter recognizes that the current situation is unworkable. Volker’s statement that “Disclosure can only work on a per-request basis…” seems to contradict the EC’s concerns regarding the current situation where access is “left at the discretion of registries and registrars”. As noted in the letter, this affects the … “ability to obtain legitimate access to non-public registration data necessary to enforce the law online, including in relation to the fight against cybercrime.” * The Final Report was Too Restrictive. The EC letters clearly state that WHOIS is in the public interest, and that the EPDP Final Report was too restrictive when it only relied on Articles 6(1)(f) as the legal basis for the new policy. This is consistent with the BC’s position in Phase 1. We need to update our analysis to recognize the other basis applicable (consent (Art. 6(1)a); performance of a contract(Art. 6(1)b); compliance with a legal obligation(Art. 6(1)c); protection of vital interest (Art. 6(1)d); and public interest (Art. 6(1)e)), and ask that Bird & Bird revisit its legal analysis in light of these developments. * The EC Guidance Reduces GDPR Risk. The EC letter notes that it has facilitated discussions between ICANN and the EDPB, and will continue to do so. This is good news, and means that the advice likely reflects input from those discussions. Following this advice should reduce GDPR risk for ICANN and contracted parties in creating a UAM. Therefore, on the points of access and purposes, the BC submits that the wording of today’s EC letter leaves little room for creative interpretation. They have repeated now, several times, the points listed above, and have done so clearly. As I say, there’s little new here. We believe it’s time to expeditiously move forward with Phase 2 and establish an access model that balances the needs of all parties. All the best, Margie and Mark, On behalf of the BC

3 2