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

Publication, Disclosure Requests (Recc 12), and Unified Access Model
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Just a follow-up on Friday’s discussion of Recommendation 12, regarding how third parties make disclosure requests under the “reasonable access” requirement in the TempSpec. During that discussion, it would have been helpful to display the attached 1-page diagram to show the relationship between Publication, Disclosure Requests, and Unified Access to Whois data. Our Recc 12 discussion applies to the lower-eft corner of the diagram. On the right side of the diagram is the Unified Access Model (UAM) we will address in phase 2 of this EPDP. A few of us put this diagram together after Barcelona, when ICANN Org began exploring a Unified Access Model where ICANN could assume GDPR legal liability in order to fulfill access requests from accredited entities. I sincerely hope this helps frame our EPDP work, so that we can move quickly to a final report on Phase 1 (left side), then get to work on the right side in Phase 2. Best, Steve -- Steve DelBianco President NetChoice +1.703.615.6206

2 1

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Kobe
by Arasteh Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Dear Ayden Thanks But this should be considered with a very specific and particular situation if some people that due to the current circumstances would be in problem ICCAN sending enormous amount of money elsewhere which either could have been économiser or not spent we do the same in EPDP I do not get into the details I merely ask Kurt to reconsider the travel support fir certain cases like me which are in serious problem without getting into the philosophical discussion on how public money should be spent . I understand one if your members in civil society facing the same problem that I am facing I respectfully request that this adhoc case be treated separately and allow people’s working since last June to continue to work on the last mile of the process and NOT bringing the saving issues here otherwise I will formally bring many issues to the process Pls be kind and favourably comment and allow Kurt to resolve these very limited two. ASR’s tgat ask travel support in his Team Regards Have a safe journey Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 18 Jan 2019, at 23:17, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > My comment was not directed to you personally. I was simply noting that we were allocated a budget for travel support that I believe we have exhausted. Widening participation is an important objective but it should only happen in line with our budget. As a representative of civil society I am well aware of the challenges that can arise in levelling the playing field and ensuring voices without financial or state muscle are heard. Alas, I think ICANN’s current system of allocating travel support is broken, and does not recognise the fact that certain stakeholders who are funded by ICANN are actually in a position to self-fund their participation. I support the principle of there being travel funding, but as ICANN is a non-profit, there exist times when we need to question when the spending of public interest money is appropriate or proper. This is not a question for the EPDP team, but it is one which I think is important. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 20:47, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Dear Auden >> My message was addressed to Kurt >> I mentioned special circumstances for few people >> This who can afford travelling on their own money are most welcome >> But we need to understand the practical problem of few people that need to be assisted >> We have been attending earlier meeting and it would not be fair that last meeting be unfounded >> No doubt many of you do not need any travel support fir obvious reasons but why you objecting to my request and request of one other NCSG Member >> Let us have such travel support and continue to work with each other >> Tks >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 18 Jan 2019, at 15:56, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> wrote: >>> >>> Respectfully, the budget we were given was always limited to three face-to-face meetings (one of which must be alongside an ICANN public meeting), and we have likely exhausted our contingency on external legal advice, facilitation services, and GDPR training. So I do think it is understandable that there would not be travel funding available for Kobe. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Friday, January 18, 2019 3:52 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Kurt >>>> >>>> In reply to my earlier message regarding Travel Support for Kobe meeting of EPDP ,I received the following from secretariat >>>> >>>> Quote >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From Marika Koenig >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For your information, the following meetings have been requested for the EPDP Team for ICANN64: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Saturday, 09 March - 08:30-18:30 >>>> Sunday, 10 March - 17:00-18:30 >>>> Wed, 13 March - 10:30 -12:00 >>>> Thursday, 14 March - 08:30-10:15 >>>> >>>> >>>> It will be decided closer to the date whether all these sessions are needed, but at a minimum, the EPDP Team is expected to meet all day on Saturday 9 March. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Note that no travel support is available for this meeting, but remote participation will be available. Similarly, alternates can be requested to step in for members not attending ICANN64. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Caitlin, Berry and Marika >>>> >>>> Unquote >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This announcement is disappointing and frustrating as based on the past experience all these TEAM MEETINGS were provided with travel support. >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not understand nor convinced that why for almost the last f2f meeting there would be no travel support >>>> >>>> >>>> In view of the circumstances some of us encountering, may I request you to seriously consider the matter and provide travel support at least for those who are in special circumstances or those that they asked for that >>>> >>>> >>>> I am awaiting your kind attention and favourable reply as soon as possible allowing us to make the travel arrangement in a smooth manner >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>> > >

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] ICANN Org response - redaction of city field
by Margie Milam Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Hi Marika & Team – Thank you for all of the hard work this week. Will you be circulating notes of the outcomes of our deliberations? It will be helpful so we can share with our constituencies. Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:51 PM To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] ICANN Org response - redaction of city field Dear EPDP Team, Here is the ICANN Org response to the question why city field is redacted in the Temporary Specification: Regarding the EPDP Team’s question about why the City field is redacted in the Temp Spec, the Cookbook provides the following rationale: "The registrant’s state/province and country will be published, but the address fields that could be used to more specifically identify the registrant would not be included in the public WHOIS (e.g. street, city, postal code). This would enable non-accredited users to determine the registrant’s general location and likely jurisdiction but would generally not enable identification of the registrant”. The link to the Cookbook: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-compliance-interim-model-0…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>. The above quote is on page 26. The response will get posted on the relevant page on the wiki. 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…>.

4 3

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Kobe
by Arasteh Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Dear Ayden By the way I did not attend the first meeting due to entry visa problem Thus I am still eligible for another ( third meeting ) in Kobe Pls recognize that all of us need to be equally treated Still I do not understand your rigidity speaking on behalf of the chair You may nit favored my attendance but I am a formal member of the team Pls kindly reconsider your position and demonstrate some degree of flexibility for those who faces serious difficulties due to prevailing circumstances Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 18 Jan 2019, at 15:56, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Respectfully, the budget we were given was always limited to three face-to-face meetings (one of which must be alongside an ICANN public meeting), and we have likely exhausted our contingency on external legal advice, facilitation services, and GDPR training. So I do think it is understandable that there would not be travel funding available for Kobe. > > Ayden > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, January 18, 2019 3:52 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Kurt >> >> In reply to my earlier message regarding Travel Support for Kobe meeting of EPDP ,I received the following from secretariat >> >> Quote >> >> >> >> From Marika Koenig >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> For your information, the following meetings have been requested for the EPDP Team for ICANN64: >> >> >> >> Saturday, 09 March - 08:30-18:30 >> Sunday, 10 March - 17:00-18:30 >> Wed, 13 March - 10:30 -12:00 >> Thursday, 14 March - 08:30-10:15 >> >> >> It will be decided closer to the date whether all these sessions are needed, but at a minimum, the EPDP Team is expected to meet all day on Saturday 9 March. >> >> >> >> Note that no travel support is available for this meeting, but remote participation will be available. Similarly, alternates can be requested to step in for members not attending ICANN64. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Caitlin, Berry and Marika >> >> Unquote >> >> >> >> This announcement is disappointing and frustrating as based on the past experience all these TEAM MEETINGS were provided with travel support. >> >> >> I do not understand nor convinced that why for almost the last f2f meeting there would be no travel support >> >> >> In view of the circumstances some of us encountering, may I request you to seriously consider the matter and provide travel support at least for those who are in special circumstances or those that they asked for that >> >> >> I am awaiting your kind attention and favourable reply as soon as possible allowing us to make the travel arrangement in a smooth manner >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> Kavouss >> >> >

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Kobe
by Arasteh Jan. 19, 2019

Jan. 19, 2019

Dear Auden My message was addressed to Kurt I mentioned special circumstances for few people This who can afford travelling on their own money are most welcome But we need to understand the practical problem of few people that need to be assisted We have been attending earlier meeting and it would not be fair that last meeting be unfounded No doubt many of you do not need any travel support fir obvious reasons but why you objecting to my request and request of one other NCSG Member Let us have such travel support and continue to work with each other Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 18 Jan 2019, at 15:56, Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Respectfully, the budget we were given was always limited to three face-to-face meetings (one of which must be alongside an ICANN public meeting), and we have likely exhausted our contingency on external legal advice, facilitation services, and GDPR training. So I do think it is understandable that there would not be travel funding available for Kobe. > > Ayden > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, January 18, 2019 3:52 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Kurt >> >> In reply to my earlier message regarding Travel Support for Kobe meeting of EPDP ,I received the following from secretariat >> >> Quote >> >> >> >> From Marika Koenig >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> For your information, the following meetings have been requested for the EPDP Team for ICANN64: >> >> >> >> Saturday, 09 March - 08:30-18:30 >> Sunday, 10 March - 17:00-18:30 >> Wed, 13 March - 10:30 -12:00 >> Thursday, 14 March - 08:30-10:15 >> >> >> It will be decided closer to the date whether all these sessions are needed, but at a minimum, the EPDP Team is expected to meet all day on Saturday 9 March. >> >> >> >> Note that no travel support is available for this meeting, but remote participation will be available. Similarly, alternates can be requested to step in for members not attending ICANN64. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Caitlin, Berry and Marika >> >> Unquote >> >> >> >> This announcement is disappointing and frustrating as based on the past experience all these TEAM MEETINGS were provided with travel support. >> >> >> I do not understand nor convinced that why for almost the last f2f meeting there would be no travel support >> >> >> In view of the circumstances some of us encountering, may I request you to seriously consider the matter and provide travel support at least for those who are in special circumstances or those that they asked for that >> >> >> I am awaiting your kind attention and favourable reply as soon as possible allowing us to make the travel arrangement in a smooth manner >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> Kavouss >> >> >

1 0

ICANN Compliance Input
by Marika Konings Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As a follow up to the discussion on the public comments in relation to recommendation #7, please find attached and below the information that was provided previously by ICANN Compliance to the EPDP Team. If there are any further questions that would help inform the deliberations on recommendation #7, please share these with the list. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ================== Use of data by ICANN Org 1. How does ICANN Contractual Compliance use WHOIS data? For example, in the case of a WHOIS inaccuracy complaint, can ICANN Contractual Compliance retrieve data from escrow, or does ICANN Contractual Compliance typically ask the registrar or the registry operator? ICANN Contractual Compliance uses WHOIS data to review WHOIS Inaccuracy complaints and other complaints related to domain management (e.g., Transfers, Unauthorized Transfer, Domain Deletion, Renewals, etc.). Depending on the nature of the complaint, ICANN Contractual Compliance may ask the registrar for relevant data to investigate the complaint. Compliance may also look at the Registry public WHOIS to supplement its review or processing. Compliance does not use escrowed data for complaint processing as it is not one of the conditions for escrow deposits release under the data escrow agreements and ICANN agreements. 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

ICANN Org response - redaction of city field
by Marika Konings Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Here is the ICANN Org response to the question why city field is redacted in the Temporary Specification: Regarding the EPDP Team’s question about why the City field is redacted in the Temp Spec, the Cookbook provides the following rationale: "The registrant’s state/province and country will be published, but the address fields that could be used to more specifically identify the registrant would not be included in the public WHOIS (e.g. street, city, postal code). This would enable non-accredited users to determine the registrant’s general location and likely jurisdiction but would generally not enable identification of the registrant”. The link to the Cookbook: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-compliance-interim-model-0…. The above quote is on page 26. The response will get posted on the relevant page on the wiki. 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…>.

2 1

Recommendation 1 (new purposes)
by Mueller, Milton L Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

During our meeting Friday I was asked to analyze public comments on Recommendation 1 to see whether there was anything other than Purpose O (research by ICANN) that needed to be considered. As you can see from the attached spreadsheet, the answer is a simple No. There is only one new purpose proposed, namely George Kirikos's proposal for collecting data to establish the ownership history of domain names. But this did not obtain support from any other commenter or from people within the EPDP. All other requests for "additional" Purposes were either covered by existing purposes and recommendations (usually Purpose 2 but also Purpose 5 and Recommendation 7) or were variations on the "research" purpose which we considered. Several other comments did not propose new purposes at all but rather made comments about Purposes already proposed in the initial report; e.g., the request by RySG to clarify to which party (ICANN, Registries, Registrars) purposes were attributed. Regarding the "Research" purpose, as we discussed Friday it is not clear whether it is needed until ICANN's role is specified. As Ruth stated, if ICANN is the controller for registration data it can use the data for research anyway. I would conclude that in responding to public comment we can use this analysis as the basis for our response. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology

1 0

EPDP Team meeting during ICANN 64 Kobe
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

Derar Kurt, Pls by the end of this meeting kindly clarify whether there would be travel support for the above-mentioned meeting The sooner the better to enable finding cheaper ticket " Marche grise" Regards Kavouss

2 1

Fwd: [council] GDPR EPDP
by Stephanie Perrin Jan. 18, 2019

Jan. 18, 2019

this is a very useful recent opinion; I find the highlighted article summarized the guidance in a helpful way. Stephanie Perrin -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] GDPR EPDP Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:55:22 +0100 From: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com><mailto:erika@erikamann.com> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> All - Maybe helpful for your EPDP discussion’s. Keep in mind this document is released by the Belgian national DPA and not the European cross national board of DPAs. Nonetheless I assume that they will have discussed this with their colleagues but I had no chance (yet) to check this. Regards, Erika Belgium's privacy watchdog publishes guidance on the notions of controller and processor<https://www.lexology.com/r.ashx?i=6685664&l=88SJB9G> CMS Belgium[CMS Belgium logo]<http://www.cms-db.com/> Belgium<https://www.lexology.com/hub/belgium> January 17 2019 Recently, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“DPA<https://www.dataprotectionauthority.be/>”) published guidance on controller and processor concepts (see original documents in French<https://www.autoriteprotectiondonnees.be/sites/privacycommission/files/docu…> and in Dutch<https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/sites/privacycommission/files…>), refreshing the distinction between these two concepts and their implications. In view of recent questions about the qualification and concrete application of the concepts of controller and processor, the DPA has decided to recap the principles and definitions applicable to these concepts. Sent from my iPhone

1 0