For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting
Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC. Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson: · Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? · Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview b) EPDP Team reactions c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated) b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
Thank you for the updated (Chameleon) SSAD Model. It is a great improvement. That being said, I have three comments: 1. We use the term "Authorization Provider" (Auth-P) in our core work, but it is absent here. It is important that we stick to consistent terminology and use the terms we define, further elaborating that the Auth-P could be a CP or a component of the SSAD itself. 2. I went to some length to describe how it may be possible to seed the SSAD with request prototypes for which there is agreement that they can be handled in an automated fashion. I understand that it is quite possible that we might not find any such cases to which CPs feel comfortable, but if we do not try, it will certainly not happen. And if we do not document the process in our report, it will never happen. 3. The first bullet point on page 1 talks about "shifting liability". I have long believed that we could make a strong case for ICANN being the sole controller since ICANN sets the rules under which registrant data is handled (this EPDP). I accept that not many agree with me. However, there is far more support for ICANN and CP being joint controllers. To borrow a line from the NCSG, after nearly 18 months of grueling work on behalf of this EPDP and ICANN Org, we still have not determined what the controller relationship is nor have we seemingly even attempted to draft a joint controller agreement. Such an agreement might well ASSIGN some responsibility and therefore liability to ICANN and there would be no need to "shift" liability (which we have repeatedly been told is not likely to happen). To glibly just talk about "shifting liability" does not do this important subject justice. Alan At 21/01/2020 09:43 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC. Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback � this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document � other comments and/orr highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter � see qquestions suggested by Marc Anderson: · Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? · Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview b) EPDP Team reactions c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated) b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid with possibility to evaluate to a" centralized Model - 21 January 2020.docx" Content-Description: Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid with possibility to evaluate to a centralized Model - 21 January 2020.docx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid with possibility to evaluate to a" centralized Model - 21 January 2020.docx"; size=75518; creation-date="Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:43:56 GMT"; modification-date="Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:43:56 GMT" Content-ID: <E3AF9DA2A156234AB867E45D9CB28C58@pexch112.icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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.
Hello Marika, thank you for the new proposal. I note that there is a new proposal included, which is the recommendation of the formation of a steering committee. Where did this come from? If it rises to the level of a proposed recommendation in the draft, it should have originated from the community and seen some consensus amongst our groups, but I recall no such discussion. I appreciate the apparent desire for something other than a full-fledged PDP to make modifications as time goes by and we learn more about the SSAD and its potential flaws, but I have my doubts that the community has sufficient resources in all groups to staff such a body (It sounds a bit like being condemned to "EPDP for life"). The proposed make-up also seems unbalanced as the 4 CPH members could be outvoted by the 5 non-contracted members, and At-Large and NCSG share one seat (I have my doubts that this could lead to anything but a stalemate for that seat). As a majority is sufficient to send any proposal to the GNSO council (even though it requires a supermajority), this could be problematic. With regard to Rec 15: Logging, I porpose to clarify that logging should not extend to any personal data disclosed through the system as part of any disclosure decision as that would open up another can of privacy worms. Rec: 14: I Don't think the "must" in the first paragraph had consensus, or am I mistaken. "should" and "may" are fine, especially since it may not be known whether automation is legally permissible in any specific case unless it leaves the realm of automation and enters the realm of someone looking at the request and making the relevant determination. I am all for automating that which can be automated but ultimately that must be determined by the disclosing parties. Rec 12: Suggestion: Could we add something to the effect that requestors must/should state in their request for how long they will / expect to retain the data? Also, requestors must always state in their request that in case they intend to share the data with third parties, who those third parties are and what their purposes are. Best, Volker Am 21.01.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Marika Konings:
Dear EPDP Team,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC.
Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
*EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41*
*Proposed Agenda*
Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC
1.Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)
2.Confirmation of agenda (Chair)
3.Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes)
a)Update from the legal committee
b)ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson:
·Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter?
·Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA?
4.Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”)
a)Staff overview
b)EPDP Team reactions
c)Confirm next steps
5.Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles
a)Leadership Priorities
b)EPDP Team input
c)Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting
d)Confirm next steps
6.Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows
a)See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated)
b)EPDP Team input
c)Confirm next steps
7.Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes):
a)Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office
b)Confirm action items
c)Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
_______________________________________________ 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. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*
T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
Thanks for this Volker. I admit I had not had a chance to review the document past the SSAD model description at the start. I am rather startled that there would be a proposal that the ALAC and NCSG jointly appoint a single member. I've checked and it is not April 1st. Alan At 22/01/2020 04:46 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: Hello Marika, thank you for the new proposal. I note that there is a new proposal included, which is the recommendation of the formation of a steering committee. Where did this come from? If it rises to the level of a proposed recommendation in the draft, it should have originated from the community and seen some consensus amongst our groups, but I recall no such discussion. I appreciate the apparent desire for something other than a full-fledged PDP to make modifications as time goes by and we learn more about the SSAD and its potential flaws, but I have my doubts that the community has sufficient resources in all groups to staff such a body (It sounds a bit like being condemned to "EPDP for life"). The proposed make-up also seems unbalanced as the 4 CPH members could be outvoted by the 5 non-contracted members, and At-Large and NCSG share one seat (I have my doubts that this could lead to anything but a stalemate for that seat). As a majority is sufficient to send any proposal to the GNSO council (even though it requires a supermajority), this could be problematic. With regard to Rec 15: Logging, I porpose to clarify that logging should not extend to any personal data disclosed through the system as part of any disclosure decision as that would open up another can of privacy worms. Rec: 14: I Don't think the "must" in the first paragraph had consensus, or am I mistaken. "should" and "may" are fine, especially since it may not be known whether automation is legally permissible in any specific case unless it leaves the realm of automation and enters the realm of someone looking at the request and making the relevant determination. I am all for automating that which can be automated but ultimately that must be determined by the disclosing parties. Rec 12: Suggestion: Could we add something to the effect that requestors must/should state in their request for how long they will / expect to retain the data? Also, requestors must always state in their request that in case they intend to share the data with third parties, who those third parties are and what their purposes are. Best, Volker Am 21.01.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Marika Konings: Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC. Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback � this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document � other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter � see questions suggested by Marc Anderson: · Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? · Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview b) EPDP Team reactions c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated) b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any _______________________________________________ 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. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. _______________________________________________ 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.
Volker, Thank you for your feedback. I would like to explain thinking behind the Steering Committee proposal. It is nothing but common sense idea. If you have a transitional process, it should be somehow managed. A steering committee is the most common way of overseeing and handling such transitional process. Leadership and staff analyzed discussion on CPH hybrid model and came forward with a description to stimulate further discussion of the Team. If idea will fly it will turn into a Team proposal. If not, Team should come up with a different idea. As per modalities of the potential Steering Committee, it will be discussed in depth. The current proposal is drawn from an existing Steering group within one of ICANN processes. Look forward to Team's discussion tomorrow JK On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:47 AM Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Hello Marika,
thank you for the new proposal. I note that there is a new proposal included, which is the recommendation of the formation of a steering committee. Where did this come from? If it rises to the level of a proposed recommendation in the draft, it should have originated from the community and seen some consensus amongst our groups, but I recall no such discussion.
I appreciate the apparent desire for something other than a full-fledged PDP to make modifications as time goes by and we learn more about the SSAD and its potential flaws, but I have my doubts that the community has sufficient resources in all groups to staff such a body (It sounds a bit like being condemned to "EPDP for life").
The proposed make-up also seems unbalanced as the 4 CPH members could be outvoted by the 5 non-contracted members, and At-Large and NCSG share one seat (I have my doubts that this could lead to anything but a stalemate for that seat). As a majority is sufficient to send any proposal to the GNSO council (even though it requires a supermajority), this could be problematic.
With regard to Rec 15: Logging, I porpose to clarify that logging should not extend to any personal data disclosed through the system as part of any disclosure decision as that would open up another can of privacy worms.
Rec: 14: I Don't think the "must" in the first paragraph had consensus, or am I mistaken. "should" and "may" are fine, especially since it may not be known whether automation is legally permissible in any specific case unless it leaves the realm of automation and enters the realm of someone looking at the request and making the relevant determination. I am all for automating that which can be automated but ultimately that must be determined by the disclosing parties.
Rec 12: Suggestion: Could we add something to the effect that requestors must/should state in their request for how long they will / expect to retain the data? Also, requestors must always state in their request that in case they intend to share the data with third parties, who those third parties are and what their purposes are.
Best,
Volker
Am 21.01.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Marika Konings:
Dear EPDP Team,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC.
Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
*EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41*
*Proposed Agenda*
Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC
1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)
2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair)
3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes)
a) Update from the legal committee
b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson:
· Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter?
· Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA?
4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”)
a) Staff overview
b) EPDP Team reactions
c) Confirm next steps
5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles
a) Leadership Priorities
b) EPDP Team input
c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting
d) Confirm next steps
6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows
a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated)
b) EPDP Team input
c) Confirm next steps
7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes):
a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office
b) Confirm action items
c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing listGnso-epdp-team@icann.orghttps://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.
-- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*
T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net
Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. _______________________________________________ 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.
I think this Hybrid proposal is one of those attempts to find a middle ground when you discover that the “middle” is a chasm with no floor. Just some brief comments about the obvious things as NCSG is preparing comments. I was opposed in principle to the idea of a standing committee that can redefine policy without a PDP. It struck me as a bad idea. This would become over time a shadow committee that would make policy in a small closed group with no checks and balances. But when I saw the proposed composition of the standing committee my opposition hardened into pure rage. That composition is not only unacceptable to NCSG, but constitutes what can only be interpreted as a calculated insult to the interests of data subjects, registrants and privacy advocates. You propose to give two dedicated seats to BC and IPC, which on this issue represent exactly the same constituencies and interests. You add another dedicated seat for SSAC, which also has an interest in disclosure, and is not a GNSO SG. You give multiple seats to CPH. So in effect, EVERY Stakeholder Group in the GNSO except ONE has multiple seats on this standing committee. How does one justify that? What kind of thinking about this problem would come up with that? Janis? Marika? Barry? Can you tell me? I will be very interested in listening to the rationale. Further, as Volker has noted, the idea of splitting a seat between two completely different units with no common procedures (ALAC and NCSG) is simply impractical. Additionally, since this idea of a standing committee has no basis in prior discussions, I think we can eliminate it from consideration quite quickly tomorrow. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 4:47 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting Hello Marika, thank you for the new proposal. I note that there is a new proposal included, which is the recommendation of the formation of a steering committee. Where did this come from? If it rises to the level of a proposed recommendation in the draft, it should have originated from the community and seen some consensus amongst our groups, but I recall no such discussion. I appreciate the apparent desire for something other than a full-fledged PDP to make modifications as time goes by and we learn more about the SSAD and its potential flaws, but I have my doubts that the community has sufficient resources in all groups to staff such a body (It sounds a bit like being condemned to "EPDP for life"). The proposed make-up also seems unbalanced as the 4 CPH members could be outvoted by the 5 non-contracted members, and At-Large and NCSG share one seat (I have my doubts that this could lead to anything but a stalemate for that seat). As a majority is sufficient to send any proposal to the GNSO council (even though it requires a supermajority), this could be problematic. With regard to Rec 15: Logging, I porpose to clarify that logging should not extend to any personal data disclosed through the system as part of any disclosure decision as that would open up another can of privacy worms. Rec: 14: I Don't think the "must" in the first paragraph had consensus, or am I mistaken. "should" and "may" are fine, especially since it may not be known whether automation is legally permissible in any specific case unless it leaves the realm of automation and enters the realm of someone looking at the request and making the relevant determination. I am all for automating that which can be automated but ultimately that must be determined by the disclosing parties. Rec 12: Suggestion: Could we add something to the effect that requestors must/should state in their request for how long they will / expect to retain the data? Also, requestors must always state in their request that in case they intend to share the data with third parties, who those third parties are and what their purposes are. Best, Volker Am 21.01.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Marika Konings: Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC. Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson: · Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? · Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview b) EPDP Team reactions c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated) b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any _______________________________________________ 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. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
For the record....I agree with Milton. Stephanie Perrin NCSG Chair On 2020-01-22 17:41, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I think this Hybrid proposal is one of those attempts to find a middle ground when you discover that the “middle” is a chasm with no floor. Just some brief comments about the obvious things as NCSG is preparing comments. I was opposed in principle to the idea of a standing committee that can redefine policy without a PDP. It struck me as a bad idea. This would become over time a shadow committee that would make policy in a small closed group with no checks and balances. But when I saw the proposed composition of the standing committee my opposition hardened into pure rage. That composition is not only unacceptable to NCSG, but constitutes what can only be interpreted as a calculated insult to the interests of data subjects, registrants and privacy advocates. You propose to give two dedicated seats to BC and IPC, which on this issue represent exactly the same constituencies and interests. You add another dedicated seat for SSAC, which also has an interest in disclosure, and is not a GNSO SG. You give multiple seats to CPH. So in effect, EVERY Stakeholder Group in the GNSO except ONE has multiple seats on this standing committee. How does one justify that? What kind of thinking about this problem would come up with that? Janis? Marika? Barry? Can you tell me? I will be very interested in listening to the rationale. Further, as Volker has noted, the idea of splitting a seat between two completely different units with no common procedures (ALAC and NCSG) is simply impractical. Additionally, since this idea of a standing committee has no basis in prior discussions, I think we can eliminate it from consideration quite quickly tomorrow. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 4:47 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting Hello Marika, thank you for the new proposal. I note that there is a new proposal included, which is the recommendation of the formation of a steering committee. Where did this come from? If it rises to the level of a proposed recommendation in the draft, it should have originated from the community and seen some consensus amongst our groups, but I recall no such discussion. I appreciate the apparent desire for something other than a full-fledged PDP to make modifications as time goes by and we learn more about the SSAD and its potential flaws, but I have my doubts that the community has sufficient resources in all groups to staff such a body (It sounds a bit like being condemned to "EPDP for life"). The proposed make-up also seems unbalanced as the 4 CPH members could be outvoted by the 5 non-contracted members, and At-Large and NCSG share one seat (I have my doubts that this could lead to anything but a stalemate for that seat). As a majority is sufficient to send any proposal to the GNSO council (even though it requires a supermajority), this could be problematic. With regard to Rec 15: Logging, I porpose to clarify that logging should not extend to any personal data disclosed through the system as part of any disclosure decision as that would open up another can of privacy worms. Rec: 14: I Don't think the "must" in the first paragraph had consensus, or am I mistaken. "should" and "may" are fine, especially since it may not be known whether automation is legally permissible in any specific case unless it leaves the realm of automation and enters the realm of someone looking at the request and making the relevant determination. I am all for automating that which can be automated but ultimately that must be determined by the disclosing parties. Rec 12: Suggestion: Could we add something to the effect that requestors must/should state in their request for how long they will / expect to retain the data? Also, requestors must always state in their request that in case they intend to share the data with third parties, who those third parties are and what their purposes are. Best, Volker Am 21.01.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Marika Konings: Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC. Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson: · Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? · Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview b) EPDP Team reactions c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated) b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any _______________________________________________ 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. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. _______________________________________________ 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.
Thank you, Milton for your comments. I understand your opposition to the proposed composition of the Steering Committee. It can be reviewed. Staff will explain thinking behind the composition during the call and will point to the precedent. You also wrote that the Steering Committee was a bad idea in general and could undermine community policy development. If so, could you think of anything instead providing that we would find a consensus on some kind of evolutionary model? I would invite the Team to consider the proposed model without taking into account the composition of the Steering Committee. Pls also consider last indication from the GAC that we should " automate to the greatest extent that is possible at the start and move towards automating a greater proportion of activities". Our exercise is a balancing act among many competing interests and nobody should feel fully satisfied. Pls be prepared for some uncomfortable feeling:-). Talk to you all later today JK On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:41 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
I think this Hybrid proposal is one of those attempts to find a middle ground when you discover that the “middle” is a chasm with no floor.
Just some brief comments about the obvious things as NCSG is preparing comments.
I was opposed in principle to the idea of a standing committee that can redefine policy without a PDP. It struck me as a bad idea. This would become over time a shadow committee that would make policy in a small closed group with no checks and balances.
But when I saw the proposed composition of the standing committee my opposition hardened into pure rage. That composition is not only unacceptable to NCSG, but constitutes what can only be interpreted as a calculated insult to the interests of data subjects, registrants and privacy advocates.
You propose to give two dedicated seats to BC and IPC, which on this issue represent exactly the same constituencies and interests. You add another dedicated seat for SSAC, which also has an interest in disclosure, and is not a GNSO SG. You give multiple seats to CPH. So in effect, EVERY Stakeholder Group in the GNSO except ONE has multiple seats on this standing committee. How does one justify that? What kind of thinking about this problem would come up with that? Janis? Marika? Barry? Can you tell me? I will be very interested in listening to the rationale.
Further, as Volker has noted, the idea of splitting a seat between two completely different units with no common procedures (ALAC and NCSG) is simply impractical. Additionally, since this idea of a standing committee has no basis in prior discussions, I think we can eliminate it from consideration quite quickly tomorrow.
Dr. Milton L Mueller
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Public Policy
[image: IGP_logo_gold block]
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2020 4:47 AM *To:* gnso-epdp-team@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting
Hello Marika,
thank you for the new proposal. I note that there is a new proposal included, which is the recommendation of the formation of a steering committee. Where did this come from? If it rises to the level of a proposed recommendation in the draft, it should have originated from the community and seen some consensus amongst our groups, but I recall no such discussion.
I appreciate the apparent desire for something other than a full-fledged PDP to make modifications as time goes by and we learn more about the SSAD and its potential flaws, but I have my doubts that the community has sufficient resources in all groups to staff such a body (It sounds a bit like being condemned to "EPDP for life").
The proposed make-up also seems unbalanced as the 4 CPH members could be outvoted by the 5 non-contracted members, and At-Large and NCSG share one seat (I have my doubts that this could lead to anything but a stalemate for that seat). As a majority is sufficient to send any proposal to the GNSO council (even though it requires a supermajority), this could be problematic.
With regard to Rec 15: Logging, I porpose to clarify that logging should not extend to any personal data disclosed through the system as part of any disclosure decision as that would open up another can of privacy worms.
Rec: 14: I Don't think the "must" in the first paragraph had consensus, or am I mistaken. "should" and "may" are fine, especially since it may not be known whether automation is legally permissible in any specific case unless it leaves the realm of automation and enters the realm of someone looking at the request and making the relevant determination. I am all for automating that which can be automated but ultimately that must be determined by the disclosing parties.
Rec 12: Suggestion: Could we add something to the effect that requestors must/should state in their request for how long they will / expect to retain the data? Also, requestors must always state in their request that in case they intend to share the data with third parties, who those third parties are and what their purposes are.
Best,
Volker
Am 21.01.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Marika Konings:
Dear EPDP Team,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC.
Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
*EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41*
*Proposed Agenda*
Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC
1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)
2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair)
3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes)
a) Update from the legal committee
b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson:
· Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter?
· Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA?
4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”)
a) Staff overview
b) EPDP Team reactions
c) Confirm next steps
5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles
a) Leadership Priorities
b) EPDP Team input
c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting
d) Confirm next steps
6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows
a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated)
b) EPDP Team input
c) Confirm next steps
7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes):
a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office
b) Confirm action items
c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
_______________________________________________
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.
-- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*
T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net
Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear All, Thank you for putting forward a proposal for a solution that could with some clear principles and commitments work. The suggested SSAD principles lack · The basic idea behind the proposal, which is starting with an automated base line and building on it as we go ahead · Commitment to efficiency with regard to the proposed system, a commitment to an agreed upon starting baseline · The idea that this policy allows for a centralized model to exist if and when possible. It should be clear that the proposed steering committee is not about creating or redefining policies, the policy is to be set now and through this group. The steering group is about the practical aspect of this as we move on. Best Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:06 AM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting Thank you, Milton for your comments. I understand your opposition to the proposed composition of the Steering Committee. It can be reviewed. Staff will explain thinking behind the composition during the call and will point to the precedent. You also wrote that the Steering Committee was a bad idea in general and could undermine community policy development. If so, could you think of anything instead providing that we would find a consensus on some kind of evolutionary model? I would invite the Team to consider the proposed model without taking into account the composition of the Steering Committee. Pls also consider last indication from the GAC that we should " automate to the greatest extent that is possible at the start and move towards automating a greater proportion of activities". Our exercise is a balancing act among many competing interests and nobody should feel fully satisfied. Pls be prepared for some uncomfortable feeling:-). Talk to you all later today JK On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:41 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: I think this Hybrid proposal is one of those attempts to find a middle ground when you discover that the “middle” is a chasm with no floor. Just some brief comments about the obvious things as NCSG is preparing comments. I was opposed in principle to the idea of a standing committee that can redefine policy without a PDP. It struck me as a bad idea. This would become over time a shadow committee that would make policy in a small closed group with no checks and balances. But when I saw the proposed composition of the standing committee my opposition hardened into pure rage. That composition is not only unacceptable to NCSG, but constitutes what can only be interpreted as a calculated insult to the interests of data subjects, registrants and privacy advocates. You propose to give two dedicated seats to BC and IPC, which on this issue represent exactly the same constituencies and interests. You add another dedicated seat for SSAC, which also has an interest in disclosure, and is not a GNSO SG. You give multiple seats to CPH. So in effect, EVERY Stakeholder Group in the GNSO except ONE has multiple seats on this standing committee. How does one justify that? What kind of thinking about this problem would come up with that? Janis? Marika? Barry? Can you tell me? I will be very interested in listening to the rationale. Further, as Volker has noted, the idea of splitting a seat between two completely different units with no common procedures (ALAC and NCSG) is simply impractical. Additionally, since this idea of a standing committee has no basis in prior discussions, I think we can eliminate it from consideration quite quickly tomorrow. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 4:47 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting Hello Marika, thank you for the new proposal. I note that there is a new proposal included, which is the recommendation of the formation of a steering committee. Where did this come from? If it rises to the level of a proposed recommendation in the draft, it should have originated from the community and seen some consensus amongst our groups, but I recall no such discussion. I appreciate the apparent desire for something other than a full-fledged PDP to make modifications as time goes by and we learn more about the SSAD and its potential flaws, but I have my doubts that the community has sufficient resources in all groups to staff such a body (It sounds a bit like being condemned to "EPDP for life"). The proposed make-up also seems unbalanced as the 4 CPH members could be outvoted by the 5 non-contracted members, and At-Large and NCSG share one seat (I have my doubts that this could lead to anything but a stalemate for that seat). As a majority is sufficient to send any proposal to the GNSO council (even though it requires a supermajority), this could be problematic. With regard to Rec 15: Logging, I porpose to clarify that logging should not extend to any personal data disclosed through the system as part of any disclosure decision as that would open up another can of privacy worms. Rec: 14: I Don't think the "must" in the first paragraph had consensus, or am I mistaken. "should" and "may" are fine, especially since it may not be known whether automation is legally permissible in any specific case unless it leaves the realm of automation and enters the realm of someone looking at the request and making the relevant determination. I am all for automating that which can be automated but ultimately that must be determined by the disclosing parties. Rec 12: Suggestion: Could we add something to the effect that requestors must/should state in their request for how long they will / expect to retain the data? Also, requestors must always state in their request that in case they intend to share the data with third parties, who those third parties are and what their purposes are. Best, Volker Am 21.01.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Marika Konings: Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC. Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson: • Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? • Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview b) EPDP Team reactions c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated) b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any _______________________________________________ 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. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. _______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Hadia, We think these are good principles and commitments to include in our policy development. 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 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:46 AM To: Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting Dear All, Thank you for putting forward a proposal for a solution that could with some clear principles and commitments work. The suggested SSAD principles lack * The basic idea behind the proposal, which is starting with an automated base line and building on it as we go ahead * Commitment to efficiency with regard to the proposed system, a commitment to an agreed upon starting baseline * The idea that this policy allows for a centralized model to exist if and when possible. It should be clear that the proposed steering committee is not about creating or redefining policies, the policy is to be set now and through this group. The steering group is about the practical aspect of this as we move on. Best Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:06 AM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting Thank you, Milton for your comments. I understand your opposition to the proposed composition of the Steering Committee. It can be reviewed. Staff will explain thinking behind the composition during the call and will point to the precedent. You also wrote that the Steering Committee was a bad idea in general and could undermine community policy development. If so, could you think of anything instead providing that we would find a consensus on some kind of evolutionary model? I would invite the Team to consider the proposed model without taking into account the composition of the Steering Committee. Pls also consider last indication from the GAC that we should " automate to the greatest extent that is possible at the start and move towards automating a greater proportion of activities". Our exercise is a balancing act among many competing interests and nobody should feel fully satisfied. Pls be prepared for some uncomfortable feeling:-). Talk to you all later today JK On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:41 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: I think this Hybrid proposal is one of those attempts to find a middle ground when you discover that the “middle” is a chasm with no floor. Just some brief comments about the obvious things as NCSG is preparing comments. I was opposed in principle to the idea of a standing committee that can redefine policy without a PDP. It struck me as a bad idea. This would become over time a shadow committee that would make policy in a small closed group with no checks and balances. But when I saw the proposed composition of the standing committee my opposition hardened into pure rage. That composition is not only unacceptable to NCSG, but constitutes what can only be interpreted as a calculated insult to the interests of data subjects, registrants and privacy advocates. You propose to give two dedicated seats to BC and IPC, which on this issue represent exactly the same constituencies and interests. You add another dedicated seat for SSAC, which also has an interest in disclosure, and is not a GNSO SG. You give multiple seats to CPH. So in effect, EVERY Stakeholder Group in the GNSO except ONE has multiple seats on this standing committee. How does one justify that? What kind of thinking about this problem would come up with that? Janis? Marika? Barry? Can you tell me? I will be very interested in listening to the rationale. Further, as Volker has noted, the idea of splitting a seat between two completely different units with no common procedures (ALAC and NCSG) is simply impractical. Additionally, since this idea of a standing committee has no basis in prior discussions, I think we can eliminate it from consideration quite quickly tomorrow. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 4:47 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model + agenda for Thursday's meeting Hello Marika, thank you for the new proposal. I note that there is a new proposal included, which is the recommendation of the formation of a steering committee. Where did this come from? If it rises to the level of a proposed recommendation in the draft, it should have originated from the community and seen some consensus amongst our groups, but I recall no such discussion. I appreciate the apparent desire for something other than a full-fledged PDP to make modifications as time goes by and we learn more about the SSAD and its potential flaws, but I have my doubts that the community has sufficient resources in all groups to staff such a body (It sounds a bit like being condemned to "EPDP for life"). The proposed make-up also seems unbalanced as the 4 CPH members could be outvoted by the 5 non-contracted members, and At-Large and NCSG share one seat (I have my doubts that this could lead to anything but a stalemate for that seat). As a majority is sufficient to send any proposal to the GNSO council (even though it requires a supermajority), this could be problematic. With regard to Rec 15: Logging, I porpose to clarify that logging should not extend to any personal data disclosed through the system as part of any disclosure decision as that would open up another can of privacy worms. Rec: 14: I Don't think the "must" in the first paragraph had consensus, or am I mistaken. "should" and "may" are fine, especially since it may not be known whether automation is legally permissible in any specific case unless it leaves the realm of automation and enters the realm of someone looking at the request and making the relevant determination. I am all for automating that which can be automated but ultimately that must be determined by the disclosing parties. Rec 12: Suggestion: Could we add something to the effect that requestors must/should state in their request for how long they will / expect to retain the data? Also, requestors must always state in their request that in case they intend to share the data with third parties, who those third parties are and what their purposes are. Best, Volker Am 21.01.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Marika Konings: Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 23 January at 14.00 UTC. Also, you will find attached the proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model. Please consider this proposal with your respective group and come prepared to Thursday’s meeting to share your groups feedback – this will be crucial to prepare for a productive F2F meeting. Do note that updates to the preliminary recommendations in the proposal only relate to changes that would bring the preliminary recommendations in line with the proposal described in the document – other comments and/or highlights have been removed for ease of reading and will be considered after the group’s review of the proposal. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee b) ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson: • Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter? • Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA? 4. Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”) a) Staff overview b) EPDP Team reactions c) Confirm next steps 5. Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles a) Leadership Priorities b) EPDP Team input c) Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting d) Confirm next steps 6. Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows a) See highlighted items on the issue list (to be circulated) b) EPDP Team input c) Confirm next steps 7. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any _______________________________________________ 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=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=zihgTRTwjGGneev-S_1CMk0DXRXwVLWnm2nSX2n8kQY&s=fXweqR1XtqyiquSMOa9AIN7eVoDXQ2U7xW5DWjKEaQ8&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=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=zihgTRTwjGGneev-S_1CMk0DXRXwVLWnm2nSX2n8kQY&s=4dfIJEz2Fq3DpS8dkH8x2TWaGdaHonYk3TmKWqvycDo&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=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=zihgTRTwjGGneev-S_1CMk0DXRXwVLWnm2nSX2n8kQY&s=WLh1KraUiMG2CYpw_GVOljNopaGEr9f3fV0EVtooTXM&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. -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. _______________________________________________ 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=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=zihgTRTwjGGneev-S_1CMk0DXRXwVLWnm2nSX2n8kQY&s=fXweqR1XtqyiquSMOa9AIN7eVoDXQ2U7xW5DWjKEaQ8&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=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=zihgTRTwjGGneev-S_1CMk0DXRXwVLWnm2nSX2n8kQY&s=4dfIJEz2Fq3DpS8dkH8x2TWaGdaHonYk3TmKWqvycDo&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=DwMGaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=zihgTRTwjGGneev-S_1CMk0DXRXwVLWnm2nSX2n8kQY&s=WLh1KraUiMG2CYpw_GVOljNopaGEr9f3fV0EVtooTXM&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.
From: Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com>
Staff will explain thinking behind the composition during the call and will point to the precedent.
I can think of some precedents, but they are all pretty bad ones: * counting African-Americans as 3/5 of a person in the original US constitution * Not allowing women to vote * gerrymandering legislative districts in order to create a majority for one party You also wrote that the Steering Committee was a bad idea in general and could undermine community policy development. If so, could you think of anything instead providing that we would find a consensus on some kind of evolutionary model? Yes, the Steering Committee is a bad idea, so we need not get mired in a debate about its composition. It is really an attempt to bypass the policy process, and so it is quite logical that there would be an attempt to disenfranchise key elements of the community as part of that. To answer your question directly, I am not at all convinced that we need an “evolutionary model.” I think we define policies and procedures and we are done with it. We define a policy for what can be automated and what cannot be, and we stick to it. Pls also consider last indication from the GAC that we should " automate to the greatest extent that is possible at the start and move towards automating a greater proportion of activities". NCSG does not support this objective.
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Janis Karklins -
Johan Helsingius -
King, Brian -
Marika Konings -
Mueller, Milton L -
Stephanie Perrin -
Volker Greimann