EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members
Hi James, Thank you, and thanks to our Board liaisons for their assistance. I think it might be more accurate to say that absent input from the board, we might propose policy recommendations that the Board might find unpalatable. The IPC does not agree that in the absence of input from the board we would abandon the concept of a centralized SSAD. Rather, we would continue to work together on a centralized SSAD, taking the “leap of faith” as suggested by Ashley. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs T +1 443 761 3726 markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> MarkMonitor Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 4:07 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members
I still think it’s better not to close the letter with a threat or even a prediction. The Board and Org know the critical importance of giving us a decision answering this letter. We suggest removing the final sentence. The rest of the letter is great. /marksv From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:07 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members
Hi all Can’t we simply conclude that absence of answer will not allow to pursue focused discussion on implementable and scalable model but rather continue exploring different options and failing swiftly respond to the assign task. Thanks for considering more positive language Jk Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 9, 2019, at 23:35, Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
I still think it’s better not to close the letter with a threat or even a prediction. The Board and Org know the critical importance of giving us a decision answering this letter.
We suggest removing the final sentence. The rest of the letter is great.
/marksv
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:07 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
Colleagues –
Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed.
Thanks—
J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy
Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD)
To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council
Dear ICANN Board,
We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so.
Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester.
In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester.
We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.
Thank you,
EPDP Phase 2 working group members
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (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.
Hi all, I think it does not harm to let the Board know that it will be difficult to design a model not knowing whether the Board will endorse it. Based on that, I would even go further and ask the Board to check with the Org and legal in particular so that we can rely on the answer being endorsed by those, too. Also, I do think that we need to give an indication by when we expect a Board response. Thanks, Thomas
Am 10.10.2019 um 08:32 schrieb J <karklinsj@gmail.com>:
Hi all
Can’t we simply conclude that absence of answer will not allow to pursue focused discussion on implementable and scalable model but rather continue exploring different options and failing swiftly respond to the assign task.
Thanks for considering more positive language
Jk
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 9, 2019, at 23:35, Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote:
I still think it’s better not to close the letter with a threat or even a prediction. The Board and Org know the critical importance of giving us a decision answering this letter.
We suggest removing the final sentence. The rest of the letter is great.
/marksv
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:07 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
Colleagues –
Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed.
Thanks—
J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy
Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD)
To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council
Dear ICANN Board,
We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so.
Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester.
In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester.
We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.
Thank you,
EPDP Phase 2 working group members
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team> _______________________________________________ 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.
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team> _______________________________________________ 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.
+1 to all of Thomas’s points. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 5:43 AM To: J <karklinsj@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Hi all, I think it does not harm to let the Board know that it will be difficult to design a model not knowing whether the Board will endorse it. Based on that, I would even go further and ask the Board to check with the Org and legal in particular so that we can rely on the answer being endorsed by those, too. Also, I do think that we need to give an indication by when we expect a Board response. Thanks, Thomas Am 10.10.2019 um 08:32 schrieb J <karklinsj@gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>>: Hi all Can’t we simply conclude that absence of answer will not allow to pursue focused discussion on implementable and scalable model but rather continue exploring different options and failing swiftly respond to the assign task. Thanks for considering more positive language Jk Sent from my iPhone On Oct 9, 2019, at 23:35, Mark Svancarek (CELA) via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: I still think it’s better not to close the letter with a threat or even a prediction. The Board and Org know the critical importance of giving us a decision answering this letter. We suggest removing the final sentence. The rest of the letter is great. /marksv From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:07 PM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (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.
Colleagues – Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed edits (below). Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any objections to these changes as quickly as possible. Thank you, J. _______________ EDIT 1 - The final sentence of the second paragraph. Replace: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. With: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume some sort of operational role. In some models, ICANN could assume varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to third-party requesters. EDIT 2 – The final sentence of the letter. Replace: Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. With: Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07 To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members
Thanks, James. I like your analogy from chat today: “This is like a ship captain asking if we are on the right course. WE aren’t stopping the ship, so the longer they take to confirm (or change) our course, the more at-risk our work between now and then.” Leveraging this analogy, my concern with the last sentence remains. It seems we are saying “we aren’t stopping the ship, but we are definitely going to change heading to a very specific port (i.e. ‘the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis’)”. I don’t think we have agreed that there is only one other direction we might sail. So long as we can agree that there is potential other directions, and that they will be discussed appropriately, I can live with this verbiage. /marksv From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:56 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed edits (below). Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any objections to these changes as quickly as possible. Thank you, J. _______________ EDIT 1 - The final sentence of the second paragraph. Replace: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. With: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume some sort of operational role. In some models, ICANN could assume varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to third-party requesters. EDIT 2 – The final sentence of the letter. Replace: Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. With: Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07 To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members
James, thank you for taking this on and the proposed edits. For edit 1 – I prefer the original text, but if the proposed re-write addresses the concern raised, then I can live with it. For edit 2 – Considering the proposed new version comes from Becky, I’m inclined to support that version. I do have a follow-up question for Janis. At the top of the call I think I heard that you will include the questions proposed for ICANN Org with the letter to the ICANN Board. Are you referring to the 5 questions proposed in this Google document? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N66JcJ_1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-w3k8ItZIZ... I have some concerns as while the proposed letter to the ICANN Board is drafted to stand on its own, these questions proposed to ICANN Org are not. Sending them along with the letter may be somewhat confusing and distract from the purpose of the letter. Best, Marc From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed edits (below). Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any objections to these changes as quickly as possible. Thank you, J. _______________ EDIT 1 - The final sentence of the second paragraph. Replace: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. With: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume some sort of operational role. In some models, ICANN could assume varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to third-party requesters. EDIT 2 – The final sentence of the letter. Replace: Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. With: Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07 To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members
just to be clear, I was also fine with the last sentence James included in the draft On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:26 PM Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team < gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
James, thank you for taking this on and the proposed edits.
For edit 1 – I prefer the original text, but if the proposed re-write addresses the concern raised, then I can live with it.
For edit 2 – Considering the proposed new version comes from Becky, I’m inclined to support that version.
I do have a follow-up question for Janis. At the top of the call I think I heard that you will include the questions proposed for ICANN Org with the letter to the ICANN Board. Are you referring to the 5 questions proposed in this Google document? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N66JcJ_1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-w3k8ItZIZ...
I have some concerns as while the proposed letter to the ICANN Board is drafted to stand on its own, these questions proposed to ICANN Org are not. Sending them along with the letter may be somewhat confusing and distract from the purpose of the letter.
Best,
Marc
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:56 AM *To:* gnso-epdp-team@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
Colleagues –
Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed edits (below). Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any objections to these changes as quickly as possible.
Thank you,
J.
_______________
EDIT 1 -
The final sentence of the second paragraph. Replace:
*All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. *
With:
*All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume some sort of operational role. In some models, ICANN could assume varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to third-party requesters.*
EDIT 2 –
The final sentence of the letter. Replace:
*Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.*
With:
*Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.*
*From: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> *Date: *Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07 *To: *"gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> *Subject: *EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
Colleagues –
Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed.
Thanks—
J.
-------------
*James Bladel*
GoDaddy
Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD)
To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council
Dear ICANN Board,
We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so.
Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester.
In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester.
We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so.
Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.
Thank you,
EPDP Phase 2 working group members
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (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.
Thank you all for flexibility. The letter will be sent to the Board with proposed two edits. 5 questions to the ICANN Org will not be attached. JK On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:04 PM Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> wrote:
just to be clear, I was also fine with the last sentence James included in the draft
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:26 PM Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team < gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
James, thank you for taking this on and the proposed edits.
For edit 1 – I prefer the original text, but if the proposed re-write addresses the concern raised, then I can live with it.
For edit 2 – Considering the proposed new version comes from Becky, I’m inclined to support that version.
I do have a follow-up question for Janis. At the top of the call I think I heard that you will include the questions proposed for ICANN Org with the letter to the ICANN Board. Are you referring to the 5 questions proposed in this Google document? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N66JcJ_1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-w3k8ItZIZ...
I have some concerns as while the proposed letter to the ICANN Board is drafted to stand on its own, these questions proposed to ICANN Org are not. Sending them along with the letter may be somewhat confusing and distract from the purpose of the letter.
Best,
Marc
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:56 AM *To:* gnso-epdp-team@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
Colleagues –
Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed edits (below). Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any objections to these changes as quickly as possible.
Thank you,
J.
_______________
EDIT 1 -
The final sentence of the second paragraph. Replace:
*All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. *
With:
*All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume some sort of operational role. In some models, ICANN could assume varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to third-party requesters.*
EDIT 2 –
The final sentence of the letter. Replace:
*Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.*
With:
*Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.*
*From: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> *Date: *Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07 *To: *"gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> *Subject: *EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
Colleagues –
Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed.
Thanks—
J.
-------------
*James Bladel*
GoDaddy
Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD)
To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council
Dear ICANN Board,
We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so.
Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester.
In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester.
We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so.
Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.
Thank you,
EPDP Phase 2 working group members
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (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.
Hi Janis, I think our emails crossed paths as they were delivered to my inbox one minute apart. As my suggested edit is aimed at better achieving the stated intent of the drafters of the letter, I encourage the team to consider it before finalizing the letter. Thank you. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics Phone: +1 (443) 761-3726 brian.king@markmonitor.com On Oct 10, 2019, at 4:46 PM, Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you all for flexibility. The letter will be sent to the Board with proposed two edits. 5 questions to the ICANN Org will not be attached. JK On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:04 PM Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> wrote: just to be clear, I was also fine with the last sentence James included in the draft On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:26 PM Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: James, thank you for taking this on and the proposed edits. For edit 1 – I prefer the original text, but if the proposed re-write addresses the concern raised, then I can live with it. For edit 2 – Considering the proposed new version comes from Becky, I’m inclined to support that version. I do have a follow-up question for Janis. At the top of the call I think I heard that you will include the questions proposed for ICANN Org with the letter to the ICANN Board. Are you referring to the 5 questions proposed in this Google document? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N66JcJ_1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-w3k8ItZIZ_ew/edit<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1N66JcJ-5F1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-2Dw3k8ItZIZ-5Few_edit&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=p2gZ36bJfWKQedepVGE6apQn4lEebiFwHYFXel9_D7s&e=> I have some concerns as while the proposed letter to the ICANN Board is drafted to stand on its own, these questions proposed to ICANN Org are not. Sending them along with the letter may be somewhat confusing and distract from the purpose of the letter. Best, Marc From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed edits (below). Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any objections to these changes as quickly as possible. Thank you, J. _______________ EDIT 1 - The final sentence of the second paragraph. Replace: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. With: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume some sort of operational role. In some models, ICANN could assume varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to third-party requesters. EDIT 2 – The final sentence of the letter. Replace: Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. With: Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07 To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=kqSsTKDNMH4zDSqVZ9ve7htZJKptZEt_V9Ya3DQZQ8s&e=> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=xBjUg5rlUtqjLCZHutYOZa7MLm-8u3KPMVaNfrcBh10&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=6VUvlZOb2Dev7Iq0D6klJnvv3gEiF7BxTVA0fveeBJg&e=>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=kqSsTKDNMH4zDSqVZ9ve7htZJKptZEt_V9Ya3DQZQ8s&e=> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=xBjUg5rlUtqjLCZHutYOZa7MLm-8u3KPMVaNfrcBh10&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=6VUvlZOb2Dev7Iq0D6klJnvv3gEiF7BxTVA0fveeBJg&e=>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). 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.
Brian, Taking into account time factor, can't we formulation of the last sentence: While some team members felt that in absence of reply ...., some others felt that ..... I am conscious of time factor. Would you agree? JK On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:05 PM King, Brian <Brian.King@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Hi Janis,
I think our emails crossed paths as they were delivered to my inbox one minute apart.
As my suggested edit is aimed at better achieving the stated intent of the drafters of the letter, I encourage the team to consider it before finalizing the letter. Thank you.
Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics Phone: +1 (443) 761-3726 brian.king@markmonitor.com
On Oct 10, 2019, at 4:46 PM, Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you all for flexibility. The letter will be sent to the Board with proposed two edits. 5 questions to the ICANN Org will not be attached.
JK
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:04 PM Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org> wrote:
just to be clear, I was also fine with the last sentence James included in the draft
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:26 PM Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team < gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
James, thank you for taking this on and the proposed edits.
For edit 1 – I prefer the original text, but if the proposed re-write addresses the concern raised, then I can live with it.
For edit 2 – Considering the proposed new version comes from Becky, I’m inclined to support that version.
I do have a follow-up question for Janis. At the top of the call I think I heard that you will include the questions proposed for ICANN Org with the letter to the ICANN Board. Are you referring to the 5 questions proposed in this Google document? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N66JcJ_1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-w3k8ItZIZ... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
I have some concerns as while the proposed letter to the ICANN Board is drafted to stand on its own, these questions proposed to ICANN Org are not. Sending them along with the letter may be somewhat confusing and distract from the purpose of the letter.
Best,
Marc
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:56 AM *To:* gnso-epdp-team@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
Colleagues –
Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed edits (below). Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any objections to these changes as quickly as possible.
Thank you,
J.
_______________
EDIT 1 -
The final sentence of the second paragraph. Replace:
*All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. *
With:
*All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume some sort of operational role. In some models, ICANN could assume varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to third-party requesters.*
EDIT 2 –
The final sentence of the letter. Replace:
*Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.*
With:
*Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.*
*From: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> *Date: *Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07 *To: *"gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> *Subject: *EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter
Colleagues –
Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed.
Thanks—
J.
-------------
*James Bladel*
GoDaddy
Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD)
To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council
Dear ICANN Board,
We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so.
Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester.
In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester.
We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so.
Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis.
Thank you,
EPDP Phase 2 working group members
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). 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.
Hi Janis, Yes, and thank you as always for constructively helping us come together. Much appreciated. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics Phone: +1 (443) 761-3726 brian.king@markmonitor.com On Oct 10, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com> wrote: Brian, Taking into account time factor, can't we formulation of the last sentence: While some team members felt that in absence of reply ...., some others felt that ..... I am conscious of time factor. Would you agree? JK On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:05 PM King, Brian <Brian.King@markmonitor.com<mailto:Brian.King@markmonitor.com>> wrote: Hi Janis, I think our emails crossed paths as they were delivered to my inbox one minute apart. As my suggested edit is aimed at better achieving the stated intent of the drafters of the letter, I encourage the team to consider it before finalizing the letter. Thank you. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics Phone: +1 (443) 761-3726 brian.king@markmonitor.com<mailto:brian.king@markmonitor.com> On Oct 10, 2019, at 4:46 PM, Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>> wrote: Thank you all for flexibility. The letter will be sent to the Board with proposed two edits. 5 questions to the ICANN Org will not be attached. JK On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:04 PM Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> wrote: just to be clear, I was also fine with the last sentence James included in the draft On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:26 PM Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: James, thank you for taking this on and the proposed edits. For edit 1 – I prefer the original text, but if the proposed re-write addresses the concern raised, then I can live with it. For edit 2 – Considering the proposed new version comes from Becky, I’m inclined to support that version. I do have a follow-up question for Janis. At the top of the call I think I heard that you will include the questions proposed for ICANN Org with the letter to the ICANN Board. Are you referring to the 5 questions proposed in this Google document? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N66JcJ_1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-w3k8ItZIZ_ew/edit<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1N66JcJ-5F1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-2Dw3k8ItZIZ-5Few_edit&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=p2gZ36bJfWKQedepVGE6apQn4lEebiFwHYFXel9_D7s&e=> I have some concerns as while the proposed letter to the ICANN Board is drafted to stand on its own, these questions proposed to ICANN Org are not. Sending them along with the letter may be somewhat confusing and distract from the purpose of the letter. Best, Marc From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed edits (below). Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any objections to these changes as quickly as possible. Thank you, J. _______________ EDIT 1 - The final sentence of the second paragraph. Replace: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. With: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume some sort of operational role. In some models, ICANN could assume varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to third-party requesters. EDIT 2 – The final sentence of the letter. Replace: Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. With: Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07 To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=kqSsTKDNMH4zDSqVZ9ve7htZJKptZEt_V9Ya3DQZQ8s&e=> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=xBjUg5rlUtqjLCZHutYOZa7MLm-8u3KPMVaNfrcBh10&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=6VUvlZOb2Dev7Iq0D6klJnvv3gEiF7BxTVA0fveeBJg&e=>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=kqSsTKDNMH4zDSqVZ9ve7htZJKptZEt_V9Ya3DQZQ8s&e=> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=xBjUg5rlUtqjLCZHutYOZa7MLm-8u3KPMVaNfrcBh10&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=hT2un2od0mASc1f2Fe8YKCeW4A5EFMZOorCbixw0rMs&s=6VUvlZOb2Dev7Iq0D6klJnvv3gEiF7BxTVA0fveeBJg&e=>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). 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.
Hi all, I do need to object to the second edit as it could reasonably be read to state a policy position on which we do not have consensus. To be quite clear and explicit for the board, the IPC proposes the following language, which we think is more accurate and conveys the gravity of the request: “Absent this input, the prospect of consensus on a system for standardized access is unlikely.” Thank you. Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics Phone: +1 (443) 761-3726 brian.king@markmonitor.com On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote: James, thank you for taking this on and the proposed edits. For edit 1 – I prefer the original text, but if the proposed re-write addresses the concern raised, then I can live with it. For edit 2 – Considering the proposed new version comes from Becky, I’m inclined to support that version. I do have a follow-up question for Janis. At the top of the call I think I heard that you will include the questions proposed for ICANN Org with the letter to the ICANN Board. Are you referring to the 5 questions proposed in this Google document? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N66JcJ_1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-w3k8ItZIZ_ew/edit<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1N66JcJ-5F1C9agknQGfJ22BG2L564hBS-2Dw3k8ItZIZ-5Few_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=UK-APWURi9rgc2Xr2UYxmWokdzlKWDJ5I7lIFdlDv4w&s=aSe0MP2-sCNPsSOMW7OTjJnYTDYclYNa_YdIZCcxHXE&e=> I have some concerns as while the proposed letter to the ICANN Board is drafted to stand on its own, these questions proposed to ICANN Org are not. Sending them along with the letter may be somewhat confusing and distract from the purpose of the letter. Best, Marc From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Following our call today, I have consolidated feedback in to two proposed edits (below). Per Janis’ call for silent approval, please note any objections to these changes as quickly as possible. Thank you, J. _______________ EDIT 1 - The final sentence of the second paragraph. Replace: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. With: All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume some sort of operational role. In some models, ICANN could assume varying degrees of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to third-party requesters. EDIT 2 – The final sentence of the letter. Replace: Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. With: Absent that input, the EPDP must shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies its own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 15:07 To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: EPDP Homework: Updated Draft of Board Letter Colleagues – Regarding the draft letter to the Board presented on Tuesday, some members were uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence. Since that call, I’ve been working with our Board liaisons (Becky and Chris) to make some edits. The resulting Revised Draft copied below. To expedite your review, please note that only the final sentence has changed. Thanks— J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy Letter from EPDP 2 to ICANN Board on Standardized System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD) To: ICANN Board CC: Goran CC: GNSO Council Dear ICANN Board, We are writing to you at the suggestion of the EPDP 2 Board liaisons. The working group is at a critical junction which requires clear input from the Board in order to further our work to produce realistic, timely, implementable policy recommendations. Specifically, we seek to understand the Board’s position on the scope of operational responsibility and level of liability (related to decision-making on disclosure of non-public registration data) they are willing to accept on behalf of the ICANN organization along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Our goal is to avoid policy recommendations that cement the current situation, where requests for non-public registration data are handled on a case-by-case basis by the registry/registrar in a non-standardized and decentralized manner. We are considering several models for a Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD), including (but not limited to) the Unified Access Model (UAM) developed by the Technical Study Group. All of the proposed “centralized” SSAD models presume that ICANN will assume an operational role, and, depending upon the model, some degree of responsibility and liability for decisions to disclose non-public data to a third-party requester. In some models, ICANN (or its designee) would approve accrediting bodies, or function as an accrediting body themselves. Some proposed models establish ICANN (or its designee) as the entity that will conduct an initial validation of disclosure requests prior to relaying this request to the appropriate registry or registrar. Other proposed models would require ICANN to play a larger role, either endorsing the legitimacy of the request, or issuing a determination of whether or not the registrar or registry should or must disclose the non-public data to the third party requester. We recognize that our questions are clouded by the uncertainty associated with constructing a model that is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. We are also aware of the work of ICANN org (via the “Strawberry Team”) to engage with data protection authorities to better understand the liability involved in decisions to disclose non-public registration data. As noted above, our goal is to produce realistic, timely, and implementable policy recommendations, and our work requires Board input on the level of involvement and amount of liability they are willing to assume for ICANN org, along with any prerequisites that may need to be met in order to do so. Absent that input, the EPDP work must abandon the centralized SSAD model, and shift its focus to policy recommendations aimed at improving the existing distributed model in which each registry and registrar independently evaluates, applies their own balancing test, and responds to queries on a case by case basis. Thank you, EPDP Phase 2 working group members _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). 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.
participants (9)
-
Anderson, Marc -
Becky Burr -
J -
James M. Bladel -
Janis Karklins
-
King, Brian -
Mark Svancarek (CELA) -
Mueller, Milton L -
Thomas Rickert