Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Reminder - input on mind map and questions coming out of ICANN64 meeting
I support the path laid out by Alex. I once more register dissatisfaction that the Phase 2 roadmap does not include the issue of geographic differentiation. This was clearly deferred to Phase 2 in Toronto (see the discussion ending on page 34 of the Friday 3rd transcript) and at an extensive discussion on 19 Feb (ending on page 52 of the transcript) saying that there would be a study and further discussion in phase 2. Alan At 29/03/2019 01:39 AM, Alex Deacon wrote: Thanks Marika, Here are the IPCs thoughts on your questions and how to best proceed with the Phase 2 work. Method We believe the Phase 2 work should occur in two separate and concurrent work streams. * Work Stream 1 will focus on issues and questions related to the system for standardized access to non-public registration data, as defined in the EPDP charter and the overlapping EPDP Team Recommendation #3. * Work Stream 2 will focus on completing Phase 1 issues. We also believe that the "legal small team" should continue to meet concurrent with the two work streams described above, with the focus of drafting questions to our legal resource specific to our phase 2 work and analyzing responses received (both existing and TBD). Additional thoughts * Each work stream should set and work forward on its own schedule and work plan. In fact we suggest that a separate report should be generated for each work stream. * Each work stream should schedule its own separate weekly 90min meeting. Access to these meetings is open to all EPDP members (and alternates per the charter). * In a lesson learned from phase 1, consensus calls should happen early and often. Prioritization Legal Small Group Priorities * We suggest the first priority for this team is to answer the controllership and legal basis question for a system for Standardized for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, assuming a technical framework consistent with the TSG, and in a way that sufficiently addresses issues related to liability and risk mitigation with the goal of decreasing liability risks to Contracted Parties through the adoption of a system for Standardized Access. Work Stream One Priorities * Answer the gating question in Rec #3 - "Whether such a system should be adopted" * Identify the various legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data * Move on to answering the charter questions on Access (a), (b) and (c) in the order listed. (We note that several of these questions have been answered in Phase 1 and also by the TSG work.) Work Stream Two Priorities * Issues related to Legal vs Natural distinction as identified in Rec #17 * Potential additional purposes to facilitate ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer as identified in Rec #2 * Retention period issues and data collection as identified in Rec #15 * The rest. We note that several issues in this work stream are dependent on legal advice (see below). Dependencies Any large project with parallel work streams is subject to dependencies, however we believe it is important that the EPDP team avoid serializing its work and steer clear of (while still recognizing) potential deadlocks in the process. Specifically, we appreciate the important legal issues related to controllership, risk and liability and agree that these questions must be addressed in a way that results in a win-win situation whereby risks are diminished for contracted parties and authenticated/accredited users have reliable access to requests for non-public registration data. As above, we believe that this important discussion happen in parallel with the work outlined in the work streams. ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:50 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > wrote: Dear EPDP Team, As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) by Thursday 28 March. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions: How should the team prioritize going forward? What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified? What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date? What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward? Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation ffor Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=Cg5uQf0yAfw-qlFZ0WNBfsLmmtBNUiH0SuI6Vg-gXBQ&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=tT-E2RoAucUb3pfL9zmlbRdq1sytaEf765KOEkBVCjk&e=>. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
I’m sorry to be late in submitting this input. I would like to extend my support to the proposal that was submitted by the Registries Stakeholder Group. While I understand the IPC’s desire for two work streams (or in the case of the ISPCP’s proposal, three), and I think this division of work makes some sense, I could not and do not support these work streams happening in parallel. The time commitment that this would require is something which I would consider to be unsustainable. It seems sensible to me for each respective work stream to have its own report, if that is the path we go down, but only because if these processes are happening separately, the activities of a new work stream should only begin once consensus has been reached on the previous one. Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, March 30, 2019 4:18 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I support the path laid out by Alex.
I once more register dissatisfaction that the Phase 2 roadmap does not include the issue of geographic differentiation. This was clearly deferred to Phase 2 in Toronto (see the discussion ending on page 34 of the Friday 3rd transcript) and at an extensive discussion on 19 Feb (ending on page 52 of the transcript) saying that there would be a study and further discussion in phase 2.
Alan
At 29/03/2019 01:39 AM, Alex Deacon wrote:
Thanks Marika,
Here are the IPCs thoughts on your questions and how to best proceed with the Phase 2 work.
Method
We believe the Phase 2 work should occur in two separate and concurrent work streams.
- Work Stream 1 will focus on issues and questions related to the system for standardized access to non-public registration data, as defined in the EPDP charter and the overlapping EPDP Team Recommendation #3. - Work Stream 2 will focus on completing Phase 1 issues.
We also believe that the "legal small team" should continue to meet concurrent with the two work streams described above, with the focus of drafting questions to our legal resource specific to our phase 2 work and analyzing responses received (both existing and TBD).
Additional thoughts
- Each work stream should set and work forward on its own schedule and work plan. In fact we suggest that a separate report should be generated for each work stream. - Each work stream should schedule its own separate weekly 90min meeting. Access to these meetings is open to all EPDP members (and alternates per the charter). - In a lesson learned from phase 1, consensus calls should happen early and often.
Prioritization
Legal Small Group Priorities
- We suggest the first priority for this team is to answer the controllership and legal basis question for a system for Standardized for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, assuming a technical framework consistent with the TSG, and in a way that sufficiently addresses issues related to liability and risk mitigation with the goal of decreasing liability risks to Contracted Parties through the adoption of a system for Standardized Access.
Work Stream One Priorities
- Answer the gating question in Rec #3 - "Whether such a system should be adopted" - Identify the various legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data - Move on to answering the charter questions on Access (a), (b) and (c) in the order listed. (We note that several of these questions have been answered in Phase 1 and also by the TSG work.)
Work Stream Two Priorities
- Issues related to Legal vs Natural distinction as identified in Rec #17 - Potential additional purposes to facilitate ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer as identified in Rec #2 - Retention period issues and data collection as identified in Rec #15 - The rest. We note that several issues in this work stream are dependent on legal advice (see below).
Dependencies
Any large project with parallel work streams is subject to dependencies, however we believe it is important that the EPDP team avoid serializing its work and steer clear of (while still recognizing) potential deadlocks in the process.
Specifically, we appreciate the important legal issues related to controllership, risk and liability and agree that these questions must be addressed in a way that results in a win-win situation whereby risks are diminished for contracted parties and authenticated/accredited users have reliable access to requests for non-public registration data. As above, we believe that this important discussion happen in parallel with the work outlined in the work streams. ___________ Alex DeaconCole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com +1.415.488.6009
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:50 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org > wrote: Dear EPDP Team,
As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) by Thursday 28 March. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions: How should the team prioritize going forward?What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified?What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date?What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward? Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation ffor Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=Cg5uQf0yAfw-qlFZ0WNBfsLmmtBNUiH0SuI6Vg-gXBQ&e=) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=tT-E2RoAucUb3pfL9zmlbRdq1sytaEf765KOEkBVCjk&e=). _______________________________________________Gnso-epdp-team mailing listGnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
On geographic differentiation, and on the subject of GDPR compliance generally, I was pleased to see the CEO of Facebook come out in favor of global, non-differentiated privacy protection. In his widely-read blog, Mark Zuckerberg said: "...effective privacy and data protection needs a globally harmonized framework. People around the world have called for comprehensive privacy regulation in line with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, and I agree. I believe it would be good for the internet if more countries adopted regulation such as GDPR as a common framework." I look forward to seeing Margie and other FB employees join us in support for a globally harmonized application of GDPR as we enter Phase 2. Milton Mueller Professor, Georgia Tech ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:18 PM To: Alex Deacon; Marika Konings Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Reminder - input on mind map and questions coming out of ICANN64 meeting I support the path laid out by Alex. I once more register dissatisfaction that the Phase 2 roadmap does not include the issue of geographic differentiation. This was clearly deferred to Phase 2 in Toronto (see the discussion ending on page 34 of the Friday 3rd transcript) and at an extensive discussion on 19 Feb (ending on page 52 of the transcript) saying that there would be a study and further discussion in phase 2. Alan At 29/03/2019 01:39 AM, Alex Deacon wrote: Thanks Marika, Here are the IPCs thoughts on your questions and how to best proceed with the Phase 2 work. Method We believe the Phase 2 work should occur in two separate and concurrent work streams. * Work Stream 1 will focus on issues and questions related to the system for standardized access to non-public registration data, as defined in the EPDP charter and the overlapping EPDP Team Recommendation #3. * Work Stream 2 will focus on completing Phase 1 issues. We also believe that the "legal small team" should continue to meet concurrent with the two work streams described above, with the focus of drafting questions to our legal resource specific to our phase 2 work and analyzing responses received (both existing and TBD). Additional thoughts * Each work stream should set and work forward on its own schedule and work plan. In fact we suggest that a separate report should be generated for each work stream. * Each work stream should schedule its own separate weekly 90min meeting. Access to these meetings is open to all EPDP members (and alternates per the charter). * In a lesson learned from phase 1, consensus calls should happen early and often. Prioritization Legal Small Group Priorities * We suggest the first priority for this team is to answer the controllership and legal basis question for a system for Standardized for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, assuming a technical framework consistent with the TSG, and in a way that sufficiently addresses issues related to liability and risk mitigation with the goal of decreasing liability risks to Contracted Parties through the adoption of a system for Standardized Access. Work Stream One Priorities * Answer the gating question in Rec #3 - "Whether such a system should be adopted" * Identify the various legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data * Move on to answering the charter questions on Access (a), (b) and (c) in the order listed. (We note that several of these questions have been answered in Phase 1 and also by the TSG work.) Work Stream Two Priorities * Issues related to Legal vs Natural distinction as identified in Rec #17 * Potential additional purposes to facilitate ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer as identified in Rec #2 * Retention period issues and data collection as identified in Rec #15 * The rest. We note that several issues in this work stream are dependent on legal advice (see below). Dependencies Any large project with parallel work streams is subject to dependencies, however we believe it is important that the EPDP team avoid serializing its work and steer clear of (while still recognizing) potential deadlocks in the process. Specifically, we appreciate the important legal issues related to controllership, risk and liability and agree that these questions must be addressed in a way that results in a win-win situation whereby risks are diminished for contracted parties and authenticated/accredited users have reliable access to requests for non-public registration data. As above, we believe that this important discussion happen in parallel with the work outlined in the work streams. ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:50 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > wrote: Dear EPDP Team, As a reminder, please share any input you may have on the phase 2 mind map (see attached) by Thursday 28 March. In addition, your input is requested on the following questions: How should the team prioritize going forward? What next steps should be taken in relations to the dependencies identified? What should be the next steps in relation to the legal guidance to date? What is the target date for publication of the Initial Report that the EPDP Team is aiming to work toward? Please share any feedback you may have with the mailing list. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation ffor Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=Cg5uQf0yAfw-qlFZ0WNBfsLmmtBNUiH0SuI6Vg-gXBQ&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=tT-E2RoAucUb3pfL9zmlbRdq1sytaEf765KOEkBVCjk&e=>. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Ayden Férdeline -
Mueller, Milton L