Hi All,
I would not use the
term " disclosure/access
to
personal information" but would rather use the term
" disclosure/access
to
nonpublic registration data". The reason for this
is that by definition, some of the redacted data is not
personal information, but was redacted because it was
thought that in combination with other pieces of information
it could lead to identifying the data subject.
Best Regards,
Hadia
Apologies,
it looks like the pdf conversion got rid of the ticks. We’ve
replaced them with ‘X’ in the attached version.
Best
regards,
Caitlin,
Berry and Marika
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
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@icann.org
Follow the GNSO via
Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about
the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.