Notes, action items and outcomes of today's EPDP Team meeting
Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes, action items and outcomes of today’s EPDP Team meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ================= EPDP Team Meeting #38 Tuesday, 22 January 2019 Notes and Action Items EPDP Team Outcomes: * Recommendation #3 agreement to leave as is in the Initial Report. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired. * Recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider. High-level Notes/Actions: Action item #1: Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations. Action item #2: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel. Action item #3: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle. Action item #4: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups. Action item #5: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed. Action item #6: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible. Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP Team: None Notes & Action items These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ. Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates * Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect * Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. * Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team. 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) a. Recap from F2F meeting and next steps b. Review of outstanding action items c. Other updates, if applicable * Thank you for all your efforts and work in Toronto * Make sure to have PCRTs and comment summaries available (see https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) * Please make sure to review emails that have and will be circulated - important to flag by the deadline when items need to be discussed further. * Request to reconsider travel support for Kobe. Will likely be in phase 2. Would require additional budget allocation. General methodology for how GNSO meetings are run is expected to be applied - remote participation will be available. * ARS - is it possible to modify compliance purpose to cover also ARS. Could it be part of accuracy discussion? Need to separate accuracy from data quality (ARS). 3. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report a. Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy” (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * See SSAC comments. Linked to phase 2. Not intended to change the existing recommendation. * Would it be worth asking Ruth to clarify what accuracy requirements entail under GDPR? Legal committee to consider question on this topic. The group has different interpretations as to what 'accuracy' means under GDPR. Legal advice is not expected to change this recommendation but may help inform future work. Make sure that any question is specific as possible, e.g. Does controller have any responsibilities in relation to accuracy and if so, what would those be? * Consider moving this work to phase 2? * This appears to be a policy issue, not GDPR compliance. Could be dealt with later. * Should EPDP Team evaluate whether existing accuracy procedures comply with GDPR? * The party collecting data must make sure that the data is accurately put into their system. So this is a requirement for the registrars in particularly to ensure that the data - as provided by the data subject - is processed accurately. * Need to ensure that compliance has the ability to do their job - aligns with how recommendation is worded at the moment. * EPDP Team agreement to leave recommendation #3 as is. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired. Action item #1: WHOIS accuracy - Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations. b. Recommendation 9 – Data redaction - City (30 minutes) i. Review of ICANN Org response to question on this topic (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001250.html) (5 minutes) ii. Deliberate (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Initial Report recommended to keep Temp Spec requirements for City which means redaction, with IPC/BC noting that it should be unredacted. * Discussed during F2F meeting with several expressing support for not redacting. ICANN Org information shared re. rationale for redaction. * Response from Org speaks to City and postal code, not specifically city. Combination of city and postal code is what could be problematic, not necessarily just city. * In smaller places, identifying city could be an issue. * See also discussion held by RDS PDP WG on this topic. * Redaction of city is compliant per the Temporary Specification, so why change it now. * Useful field for the reasons of jurisdiction. * Need to assess support across different groups and determine whether consensus exists. * Everyone encouraged to review the information that has been provided on this subject to be able to opine. Consider asking for legal guidance. * Show of hands of those who cannot live with sticking with the temporary specification requirement of redacting city field: IPC, GAC, BC. Document in the Final Report those that cannot live with it. Action item #2: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel. 10 minute break c. Recommendation #14 Responsible Parties (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Comments do not seem to focus on specific changes * Some of this may get determined / dictated by the agreements that are put in place. Should a small team review the table and determine whether any updates need to be made? * What concerns have been raised that need to be addressed in the recommendation? * These are issues where there is disagreement, but it is not a matter of what the parties say but it is a matter law. * Caveat the analysis in some way. Further work is being done. This could help inform those deliberations but it cannot be determinative. Best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process in the form of the necessary agreements which would define the roles and responsibilities. CPH will need to have appropriate agreements with ICANN with regard to data processing. * Will need to review the processing flows after purposes are finalized and data element workbooks have been finished. For example, UDRP is one area where data processing flows are not clear. Note that a small team will meet later today to work on the data elements workbooks. Focus is on post-filing data flows. * Will need to be further detailed in the context of the discussions on the appropriate agreements between CP and ICANN Org. * Path for settling is greater than the time this group has available. * This is dependent on appropriate agreements being in place, as these would inform these recommendations. See also recommendation #13. Obligation for ICANN Org to come to the table. * EPDP Team outcome on recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider. Action item #3: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle. d. General Comments (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed in the context of the Initial Report? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes) * Some issues flagged have already been taken up or have been addressed. * Need to further consider Thick WHOIS recommendation as well as P/P recommendation. * Thick WHOIS - may be mixing topics. Group has discussed transfer of data from registrar to registry, but that may not be the same as a registry displaying THICK WHOIS output. EPDP Team should consider disclosure at registry level. What needs to happen in phase 1 and what needs to happen in phase 2, and what is best left to another group? Different options to consider on the table. Consider this topic further in the context of recommendation #5, noting that disclosure is a separate topic from transfer. Or should this be taken up in phase 2? * P/P - additional recommendation as to how to handle P/P registrations: "In the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email". What was in the Temporary Specification - need to confirm. Current language is: 2.6. Notwithstanding Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of this Appendix, in the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email. Need to consider this further and implications on GDPR. * Consider deferring these issues to another group to further review. * Consider doing further triage – does it require changes to our Initial Report recommendations, does it require phase two work, or is there another group who is / should deal with this. * Leadership team to review and make a proposal * Look at suggestion of reconsidering definition of gTLD registration data – bring this to the list. Action item #4: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups. Action item #5: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed. 4. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) a. See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoKD...) b. Initial thoughts and suggestions c. Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnLL...) Action item #6: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible. 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) a. Confirm action items b. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for 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_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Dear All, We have discussed at length the text of this Recommandation which is currently drafted as follows *Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy” * The lagunage used in this Recommandation referred to the current ICANN Contract the "*requirements related to the accuracy of registration data "*in a defensive (negative )connotation without any clear référence to GPDR requirements in Article 5 ( 5d1) In order to mitigate the case I suggest the following wording *Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN shall ensure that the requirements related to the accuracy of registration data as stipulated in paragraph 5.1d of Article 5 of GDPR are maintained * *This modification is precise, conise and implicitly refers to the **current ICANN contracts .The concept suggested by Farzaneh during the call and I slightly amend that to take into account of views expressed after her suggestion ,in particulier, by Milton after my first draft taking Farzaneh's suggestion.* *I do not agree to f seek any legal advice on this issue as this is a matter that needs to be agreed by us * *I respectfully request you to consider the matter and ask Kurt to bring it up at our next meeting .* *It is disappointing and frustrating that the comments made by two members are so categorically rejected * *Regards* *Kavouss * On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:14 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear EPDP Team,
Please find below the notes, action items and outcomes of today’s EPDP Team meeting.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
=================
EPDP Team Meeting #38
Tuesday, 22 January 2019
Notes and Action Items
*EPDP Team Outcomes:*
- Recommendation #3 agreement to leave as is in the Initial Report. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired. - Recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider.
*High-level Notes/Actions:*
*Action item #1*: Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations.
*Action item #2*: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel.
*Action item #3*: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle.
*Action item #4*: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups.
*Action item #5*: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed.
*Action item #6*: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible.
*Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP Team: *None
*Notes & Action items*
*These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: * *https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ* <https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ>*.*
Proposed Agenda:
*1. Roll Call & SOI Updates*
- Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect - Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. - Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team.
2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes)
a. Recap from F2F meeting and next steps
b. Review of outstanding action items
c. Other updates, if applicable
- Thank you for all your efforts and work in Toronto - Make sure to have PCRTs and comment summaries available (see https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) - Please make sure to review emails that have and will be circulated - important to flag by the deadline when items need to be discussed further. - Request to reconsider travel support for Kobe. Will likely be in phase 2. Would require additional budget allocation. General methodology for how GNSO meetings are run is expected to be applied - remote participation will be available. - ARS - is it possible to modify compliance purpose to cover also ARS. Could it be part of accuracy discussion? Need to separate accuracy from data quality (ARS).
3. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report
a. Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy” (30 minutes)
i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes)
ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes)
iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
- See SSAC comments. Linked to phase 2. Not intended to change the existing recommendation. - Would it be worth asking Ruth to clarify what accuracy requirements entail under GDPR? Legal committee to consider question on this topic. The group has different interpretations as to what 'accuracy' means under GDPR. Legal advice is not expected to change this recommendation but may help inform future work. Make sure that any question is specific as possible, e.g. Does controller have any responsibilities in relation to accuracy and if so, what would those be? - Consider moving this work to phase 2? - This appears to be a policy issue, not GDPR compliance. Could be dealt with later. - Should EPDP Team evaluate whether existing accuracy procedures comply with GDPR? - The party collecting data must make sure that the data is accurately put into their system. So this is a requirement for the registrars in particularly to ensure that the data - as provided by the data subject - is processed accurately. - Need to ensure that compliance has the ability to do their job - aligns with how recommendation is worded at the moment. - EPDP Team agreement to leave recommendation #3 as is. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired.
*Action item #1*: WHOIS accuracy - Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations.
b. Recommendation 9 – Data redaction - City (30 minutes)
i. Review of ICANN Org response to question on this topic (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001250.html) (5 minutes)
ii. Deliberate (20 minutes)
iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
- Initial Report recommended to keep Temp Spec requirements for City which means redaction, with IPC/BC noting that it should be unredacted. - Discussed during F2F meeting with several expressing support for not redacting. ICANN Org information shared re. rationale for redaction. - Response from Org speaks to City and postal code, not specifically city. Combination of city and postal code is what could be problematic, not necessarily just city. - In smaller places, identifying city could be an issue. - See also discussion held by RDS PDP WG on this topic. - Redaction of city is compliant per the Temporary Specification, so why change it now. - Useful field for the reasons of jurisdiction. - Need to assess support across different groups and determine whether consensus exists. - Everyone encouraged to review the information that has been provided on this subject to be able to opine. Consider asking for legal guidance. - Show of hands of those who cannot live with sticking with the temporary specification requirement of redacting city field: IPC, GAC, BC. Document in the Final Report those that cannot live with it.
*Action item #2*: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel.
10 minute break
c. Recommendation #14 Responsible Parties (30 minutes)
i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes)
ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes)
iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
- Comments do not seem to focus on specific changes - Some of this may get determined / dictated by the agreements that are put in place. Should a small team review the table and determine whether any updates need to be made? - What concerns have been raised that need to be addressed in the recommendation? - These are issues where there is disagreement, but it is not a matter of what the parties say but it is a matter law. - Caveat the analysis in some way. Further work is being done. This could help inform those deliberations but it cannot be determinative. Best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process in the form of the necessary agreements which would define the roles and responsibilities. CPH will need to have appropriate agreements with ICANN with regard to data processing. - Will need to review the processing flows after purposes are finalized and data element workbooks have been finished. For example, UDRP is one area where data processing flows are not clear. Note that a small team will meet later today to work on the data elements workbooks. Focus is on post-filing data flows. - Will need to be further detailed in the context of the discussions on the appropriate agreements between CP and ICANN Org. - Path for settling is greater than the time this group has available. - This is dependent on appropriate agreements being in place, as these would inform these recommendations. See also recommendation #13. Obligation for ICANN Org to come to the table. - EPDP Team outcome on recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider.
*Action item #3*: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle.
d. General Comments (30 minutes)
i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes)
ii. Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed in the context of the Initial Report? (20 minutes)
iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
- Some issues flagged have already been taken up or have been addressed. - Need to further consider Thick WHOIS recommendation as well as P/P recommendation. - Thick WHOIS - may be mixing topics. Group has discussed transfer of data from registrar to registry, but that may not be the same as a registry displaying THICK WHOIS output. EPDP Team should consider disclosure at registry level. What needs to happen in phase 1 and what needs to happen in phase 2, and what is best left to another group? Different options to consider on the table. Consider this topic further in the context of recommendation #5, noting that disclosure is a separate topic from transfer. Or should this be taken up in phase 2? - P/P - additional recommendation as to how to handle P/P registrations: "In the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email". What was in the Temporary Specification - need to confirm. Current language is: 2.6. Notwithstanding Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of this Appendix, in the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email. Need to consider this further and implications on GDPR. - Consider deferring these issues to another group to further review. - Consider doing further triage – does it require changes to our Initial Report recommendations, does it require phase two work, or is there another group who is / should deal with this. - Leadership team to review and make a proposal - Look at suggestion of reconsidering definition of gTLD registration data – bring this to the list.
*Action item #4*: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups.
*Action item #5*: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed.
4. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes)
a. See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoKD... )
b. Initial thoughts and suggestions
c. Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnLL... )
*Action item #6*: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible.
5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes)
a. Confirm action items
b. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
*Marika Konings*
*Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
*Email: marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> *
*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. *
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Hi Kavouss: Thank you for this recommendation and I apologize for getting back to you some days later on it. My recollection was this was discussed at the Team level. (If that recollection is faulty, we discussed a similar issue and can apply the same rationale that I describe below.) I believe your proposal is an accurate gauge of the team sentiment. However, the recommended change essentially states, we will comply to the GDPR, which is what we are trying to do in every case. I remember, either in this case or another, similar language was debated and it was determined that language merely echoing the GDPR would not be appropriate. If you disagree with this - let’s discuss it offline to see if there is another way to address your concern. Thanks and best regards, kurt
On Jan 22, 2019, at 6:36 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, We have discussed at length the text of this Recommandation which is currently drafted as follows Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy” The lagunage used in this Recommandation referred to the current ICANN Contract the "requirements related to the accuracy of registration data "in a defensive (negative )connotation without any clear référence to GPDR requirements in Article 5 ( 5d1) In order to mitigate the case I suggest the following wording Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN shall ensure that the requirements related to the accuracy of registration data as stipulated in paragraph 5.1d of Article 5 of GDPR are maintained This modification is precise, conise and implicitly refers to the current ICANN contracts .The concept suggested by Farzaneh during the call and I slightly amend that to take into account of views expressed after her suggestion ,in particulier, by Milton after my first draft taking Farzaneh's suggestion. I do not agree to f seek any legal advice on this issue as this is a matter that needs to be agreed by us I respectfully request you to consider the matter and ask Kurt to bring it up at our next meeting . It is disappointing and frustrating that the comments made by two members are so categorically rejected Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:14 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear EPDP Team,
Please find below the notes, action items and outcomes of today’s EPDP Team meeting.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
=================
EPDP Team Meeting #38 Tuesday, 22 January 2019 Notes and Action Items
EPDP Team Outcomes: Recommendation #3 agreement to leave as is in the Initial Report. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired. Recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider.
High-level Notes/Actions:
Action item #1: Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations.
Action item #2: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel.
Action item #3: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle.
Action item #4: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups.
Action item #5: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed.
Action item #6: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible.
Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP Team: None
Notes & Action items These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ>.
Proposed Agenda:
1. Roll Call & SOI Updates Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team.
2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) a. Recap from F2F meeting and next steps b. Review of outstanding action items c. Other updates, if applicable
Thank you for all your efforts and work in Toronto Make sure to have PCRTs and comment summaries available (see https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg <https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg>) Please make sure to review emails that have and will be circulated - important to flag by the deadline when items need to be discussed further. Request to reconsider travel support for Kobe. Will likely be in phase 2. Would require additional budget allocation. General methodology for how GNSO meetings are run is expected to be applied - remote participation will be available. ARS - is it possible to modify compliance purpose to cover also ARS. Could it be part of accuracy discussion? Need to separate accuracy from data quality (ARS).
3. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report a. Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy” (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg <https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg>) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
See SSAC comments. Linked to phase 2. Not intended to change the existing recommendation. Would it be worth asking Ruth to clarify what accuracy requirements entail under GDPR? Legal committee to consider question on this topic. The group has different interpretations as to what 'accuracy' means under GDPR. Legal advice is not expected to change this recommendation but may help inform future work. Make sure that any question is specific as possible, e.g. Does controller have any responsibilities in relation to accuracy and if so, what would those be? Consider moving this work to phase 2? This appears to be a policy issue, not GDPR compliance. Could be dealt with later. Should EPDP Team evaluate whether existing accuracy procedures comply with GDPR? The party collecting data must make sure that the data is accurately put into their system. So this is a requirement for the registrars in particularly to ensure that the data - as provided by the data subject - is processed accurately. Need to ensure that compliance has the ability to do their job - aligns with how recommendation is worded at the moment. EPDP Team agreement to leave recommendation #3 as is. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired.
Action item #1: WHOIS accuracy - Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations.
b. Recommendation 9 – Data redaction - City (30 minutes) i. Review of ICANN Org response to question on this topic (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001250.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001250.html>) (5 minutes) ii. Deliberate (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
Initial Report recommended to keep Temp Spec requirements for City which means redaction, with IPC/BC noting that it should be unredacted. Discussed during F2F meeting with several expressing support for not redacting. ICANN Org information shared re. rationale for redaction. Response from Org speaks to City and postal code, not specifically city. Combination of city and postal code is what could be problematic, not necessarily just city. In smaller places, identifying city could be an issue. See also discussion held by RDS PDP WG on this topic. Redaction of city is compliant per the Temporary Specification, so why change it now. Useful field for the reasons of jurisdiction. Need to assess support across different groups and determine whether consensus exists. Everyone encouraged to review the information that has been provided on this subject to be able to opine. Consider asking for legal guidance. Show of hands of those who cannot live with sticking with the temporary specification requirement of redacting city field: IPC, GAC, BC. Document in the Final Report those that cannot live with it.
Action item #2: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel.
10 minute break
c. Recommendation #14 Responsible Parties (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg <https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg>) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
Comments do not seem to focus on specific changes Some of this may get determined / dictated by the agreements that are put in place. Should a small team review the table and determine whether any updates need to be made? What concerns have been raised that need to be addressed in the recommendation? These are issues where there is disagreement, but it is not a matter of what the parties say but it is a matter law. Caveat the analysis in some way. Further work is being done. This could help inform those deliberations but it cannot be determinative. Best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process in the form of the necessary agreements which would define the roles and responsibilities. CPH will need to have appropriate agreements with ICANN with regard to data processing. Will need to review the processing flows after purposes are finalized and data element workbooks have been finished. For example, UDRP is one area where data processing flows are not clear. Note that a small team will meet later today to work on the data elements workbooks. Focus is on post-filing data flows. Will need to be further detailed in the context of the discussions on the appropriate agreements between CP and ICANN Org. Path for settling is greater than the time this group has available. This is dependent on appropriate agreements being in place, as these would inform these recommendations. See also recommendation #13. Obligation for ICANN Org to come to the table. EPDP Team outcome on recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider.
Action item #3: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle.
d. General Comments (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg <https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg>) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed in the context of the Initial Report? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
Some issues flagged have already been taken up or have been addressed. Need to further consider Thick WHOIS recommendation as well as P/P recommendation. Thick WHOIS - may be mixing topics. Group has discussed transfer of data from registrar to registry, but that may not be the same as a registry displaying THICK WHOIS output. EPDP Team should consider disclosure at registry level. What needs to happen in phase 1 and what needs to happen in phase 2, and what is best left to another group? Different options to consider on the table. Consider this topic further in the context of recommendation #5, noting that disclosure is a separate topic from transfer. Or should this be taken up in phase 2? P/P - additional recommendation as to how to handle P/P registrations: "In the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email". What was in the Temporary Specification - need to confirm. Current language is: 2.6. Notwithstanding Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of this Appendix, in the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email. Need to consider this further and implications on GDPR. Consider deferring these issues to another group to further review. Consider doing further triage – does it require changes to our Initial Report recommendations, does it require phase two work, or is there another group who is / should deal with this. Leadership team to review and make a proposal Look at suggestion of reconsidering definition of gTLD registration data – bring this to the list.
Action item #4: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups.
Action item #5: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed.
4. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) a. See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoKD... <https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoKD...>) b. Initial thoughts and suggestions c. Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnLL... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnLL...>)
Action item #6: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible.
5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) a. Confirm action items b. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for 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_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>
Dear Kurt, Thanks for reply. Yes you are right but this could be amended by adding a qualifier at the Beginning similar to the language used in current draft for Recommendation 12.. *The EPDP Team recommends that , subject to further analysis to be done at later stage , the ICANN shall ensure that the requirements related to the accuracy of registration data as stipulated in paragraph 5.1d of Article 5 of GDPR are maintained ,on an intérim basis * Regards Kavouss On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 5:23 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss:
Thank you for this recommendation and I apologize for getting back to you some days later on it.
My recollection was this was discussed at the Team level. (If that recollection is faulty, we discussed a similar issue and can apply the same rationale that I describe below.)
I believe your proposal is an accurate gauge of the team sentiment. However, the recommended change essentially states, we will comply to the GDPR, which is what we are trying to do in every case. I remember, either in this case or another, similar language was debated and it was determined that language merely echoing the GDPR would not be appropriate.
If you disagree with this - let’s discuss it offline to see if there is another way to address your concern.
Thanks and best regards,
kurt
On Jan 22, 2019, at 6:36 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, We have discussed at length the text of this Recommandation which is currently drafted as follows *Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy” * The lagunage used in this Recommandation referred to the current ICANN Contract the "*requirements related to the accuracy of registration data "*in a defensive (negative )connotation without any clear référence to GPDR requirements in Article 5 ( 5d1) In order to mitigate the case I suggest the following wording *Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that ICANN shall ensure that the requirements related to the accuracy of registration data as stipulated in paragraph 5.1d of Article 5 of GDPR are maintained * *This modification is precise, conise and implicitly refers to the **current ICANN contracts .The concept suggested by Farzaneh during the call and I slightly amend that to take into account of views expressed after her suggestion ,in particulier, by Milton after my first draft taking Farzaneh's suggestion.* *I do not agree to f seek any legal advice on this issue as this is a matter that needs to be agreed by us * *I respectfully request you to consider the matter and ask Kurt to bring it up at our next meeting .* *It is disappointing and frustrating that the comments made by two members are so categorically rejected * *Regards* *Kavouss *
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:14 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear EPDP Team,
Please find below the notes, action items and outcomes of today’s EPDP Team meeting.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
=================
EPDP Team Meeting #38 Tuesday, 22 January 2019 Notes and Action Items
*EPDP Team Outcomes:*
- Recommendation #3 agreement to leave as is in the Initial Report. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired. - Recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider.
*High-level Notes/Actions:*
*Action item #1*: Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations.
*Action item #2*: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel.
*Action item #3*: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle.
*Action item #4*: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups.
*Action item #5*: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed.
*Action item #6*: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible.
*Questions for ICANN Org from the EPDP Team: *None
*Notes & Action items* *These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: * *https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ* <https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ>*.*
Proposed Agenda:
*1. Roll Call & SOI Updates*
- Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect - Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. - Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team.
2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (5 minutes) a. Recap from F2F meeting and next steps b. Review of outstanding action items c. Other updates, if applicable
- Thank you for all your efforts and work in Toronto - Make sure to have PCRTs and comment summaries available (see https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) - Please make sure to review emails that have and will be circulated - important to flag by the deadline when items need to be discussed further. - Request to reconsider travel support for Kobe. Will likely be in phase 2. Would require additional budget allocation. General methodology for how GNSO meetings are run is expected to be applied - remote participation will be available. - ARS - is it possible to modify compliance purpose to cover also ARS. Could it be part of accuracy discussion? Need to separate accuracy from data quality (ARS).
3. Continue review of public comments on Initial Report a. Recommendation #3 WHOIS Accuracy – “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy” (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
- See SSAC comments. Linked to phase 2. Not intended to change the existing recommendation. - Would it be worth asking Ruth to clarify what accuracy requirements entail under GDPR? Legal committee to consider question on this topic. The group has different interpretations as to what 'accuracy' means under GDPR. Legal advice is not expected to change this recommendation but may help inform future work. Make sure that any question is specific as possible, e.g. Does controller have any responsibilities in relation to accuracy and if so, what would those be? - Consider moving this work to phase 2? - This appears to be a policy issue, not GDPR compliance. Could be dealt with later. - Should EPDP Team evaluate whether existing accuracy procedures comply with GDPR? - The party collecting data must make sure that the data is accurately put into their system. So this is a requirement for the registrars in particularly to ensure that the data - as provided by the data subject - is processed accurately. - Need to ensure that compliance has the ability to do their job - aligns with how recommendation is worded at the moment. - EPDP Team agreement to leave recommendation #3 as is. EPDP Team to ensure that check is done at the time of access model discussions to ensure that accuracy requirements are not impaired.
*Action item #1*: WHOIS accuracy - Kurt to draft question for submission to legal committee for Ruth re. what accuracy requirements under GDPR mean and what the impact could/should be on the EPDP Team recommendations.
b. Recommendation 9 – Data redaction - City (30 minutes) i. Review of ICANN Org response to question on this topic (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-January/001250.html) (5 minutes) ii. Deliberate (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
- Initial Report recommended to keep Temp Spec requirements for City which means redaction, with IPC/BC noting that it should be unredacted. - Discussed during F2F meeting with several expressing support for not redacting. ICANN Org information shared re. rationale for redaction. - Response from Org speaks to City and postal code, not specifically city. Combination of city and postal code is what could be problematic, not necessarily just city. - In smaller places, identifying city could be an issue. - See also discussion held by RDS PDP WG on this topic. - Redaction of city is compliant per the Temporary Specification, so why change it now. - Useful field for the reasons of jurisdiction. - Need to assess support across different groups and determine whether consensus exists. - Everyone encouraged to review the information that has been provided on this subject to be able to opine. Consider asking for legal guidance. - Show of hands of those who cannot live with sticking with the temporary specification requirement of redacting city field: IPC, GAC, BC. Document in the Final Report those that cannot live with it.
*Action item #2*: City field: EPDP Team to reconsider information provided and viewpoints expressed in relation to publication of city field. Should positions change on the basis of that reconsideration, this should be communicated to the list. In accordance with Stephanie’s formal request, the EPDP Legal Committee will discuss drafting a question regarding the city field to legal counsel.
10 minute break
c. Recommendation #14 Responsible Parties (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed during its formulation of this purpose or recommendation? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
- Comments do not seem to focus on specific changes - Some of this may get determined / dictated by the agreements that are put in place. Should a small team review the table and determine whether any updates need to be made? - What concerns have been raised that need to be addressed in the recommendation? - These are issues where there is disagreement, but it is not a matter of what the parties say but it is a matter law. - Caveat the analysis in some way. Further work is being done. This could help inform those deliberations but it cannot be determinative. Best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process in the form of the necessary agreements which would define the roles and responsibilities. CPH will need to have appropriate agreements with ICANN with regard to data processing. - Will need to review the processing flows after purposes are finalized and data element workbooks have been finished. For example, UDRP is one area where data processing flows are not clear. Note that a small team will meet later today to work on the data elements workbooks. Focus is on post-filing data flows. - Will need to be further detailed in the context of the discussions on the appropriate agreements between CP and ICANN Org. - Path for settling is greater than the time this group has available. - This is dependent on appropriate agreements being in place, as these would inform these recommendations. See also recommendation #13. Obligation for ICANN Org to come to the table. - EPDP Team outcome on recommendation #14: update language to caveat that this recommendation represents the best thinking of the group based on the analysis to date, but there is an iterative process as this Recommendation will be affected by the finalization of the necessary agreements that would define the roles and responsibilities. Staff support team to review final work product on data elements workbooks to ensure consistency with the tables under this recommendations. Should further guidance become available before finalization of the Final Report, EPDP Team can reconsider.
*Action item #3*: Staff support team to put forward proposed revisions to recommendation #14 in line with the agreement that was reached in principle.
d. General Comments (30 minutes) i. Silent review of comments received (see PCRT and discussion table at https://community.icann.org/x/U4cWBg) (5 minutes) ii. Question for team: which concerns / data elements merit group discussion? Specifically, do any of the concerns / data elements suggested present new information the EPDP Team has not discussed in the context of the Initial Report? (20 minutes) iii. Confirmation of agreement reached or next steps to come to agreement (5 minutes)
- Some issues flagged have already been taken up or have been addressed. - Need to further consider Thick WHOIS recommendation as well as P/P recommendation. - Thick WHOIS - may be mixing topics. Group has discussed transfer of data from registrar to registry, but that may not be the same as a registry displaying THICK WHOIS output. EPDP Team should consider disclosure at registry level. What needs to happen in phase 1 and what needs to happen in phase 2, and what is best left to another group? Different options to consider on the table. Consider this topic further in the context of recommendation #5, noting that disclosure is a separate topic from transfer. Or should this be taken up in phase 2? - P/P - additional recommendation as to how to handle P/P registrations: "In the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email". What was in the Temporary Specification - need to confirm. Current language is: 2.6. Notwithstanding Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of this Appendix, in the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email. Need to consider this further and implications on GDPR. - Consider deferring these issues to another group to further review. - Consider doing further triage – does it require changes to our Initial Report recommendations, does it require phase two work, or is there another group who is / should deal with this. - Leadership team to review and make a proposal - Look at suggestion of reconsidering definition of gTLD registration data – bring this to the list.
*Action item #4*: EPDP Team to review general comments and bring to the list which other items need further consideration now, which could be addressed later and which are / may be addressed by other groups.
*Action item #5*: Leadership team to review general comments discussion table and put forward a proposal for how each item is to be addressed or should be addressed.
4. Next steps to get to Final Report (15 minutes) a. See draft Final Report circulated to the mailing list (see https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1E6W-daNTaadOhG5BRlzNJQbrT9MSoKD... ) b. Initial thoughts and suggestions c. Process for review (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVZ9odV0qK1Bk8a4bDwWe5RW_PBzOnYBhHW_GnLL... )
*Action item #6*: EPDP Team to commence their review on the draft Final Report as soon as possible.
5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) a. Confirm action items b. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any
*Marika Konings*
*Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
*Email: marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> *
*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. *
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
participants (3)
-
Kavouss Arasteh -
Kurt Pritz -
Marika Konings