Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 11 March 2019
Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 11 March 2019 at 15:45 UTC at the virtual ICANN67 meeting. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-11+ICANN67+-+Review.... Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations: Review the revised text in Recommendation 1 of URS Deliberations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> (pages 1, 2 and new question on page 10) Question 1: ACTION ITEMS: -- Add specific mention of the EPDP Team for input. -- Add “(including the GDPR and other applicable privacy laws)”. -- Cross reference to mention in the report where it is noted that most URS are default cases. -- Change to “specifically, Recommendations #21, #23, and #27” and add a footnote with the recommendation text. -- Change “was referred” to “were referred”. 2. Public Comment Tool: ACTION ITEMS: -- Add to the introduction: "Please note: that there is an option at the end of this form for those who wish to add text or a point not covered by the questions" Also note that there is a character limit. -- Add at the end, “are there any other recommendations that you believe the WG should consider making?” -- Use all capitals to show emphasis – since boldface is not an option. But use sparingly. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations: Review the revised text in Recommendation 1 of URS Deliberations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> (pages 1, 2 and new question on page 10) Question 1: ACTION ITEMS: -- Add specific mention of the EPDP Team for input. -- Add “(including the GDPR and other applicable privacy laws)”. -- Cross reference to mention in the report where it is noted that most URS are default cases. -- Change to “specifically, Recommendations #21, #23, and #27” and add a footnote with the recommendation text. -- Change “was referred” to “were referred”. 3. Review of Initial Report Remaining Boilerplate Sections – Action Items from Monday’s meeting) – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUr_YS7PbxFDapazk2wtGxPulPsxgL76P45uCsSv... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>: Staff will review the Charter to make sure any overarching issues are reflected in the Next Steps document and in the Charter Questions annex. -- Question: Whether the WG would like to call out the additional questions in the Initial Report for comment? Answer: WG confirms that they should be included for public comment. -- No changes from the WG. 4. Public Comment Tool: Address any questions/clarify possible areas of confusion. See: https://forms.gle/FjAarKNu2HGzdKo8A [forms.gle] [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_FjAarKNu2HGzd...> -- Standard form for public comments. -- Ensures that the categorization of the comments is more accurate. Staff don’t have to make assumptions concerning support/non-support. -- Enables commenters to use a free-form box to provide general comments. -- Commenters can access both a Word and PDF version as a working document, although commenters will need to submit comments using the tool. ACTION ITEMS: -- Add to the introduction: "Please note: that there is an option at the end of this form for those who wish to add text or a point not covered by the questions" Also note that there is a character limit. -- Add at the end, “are there any other recommendations that you believe the WG should consider making?” -- Use all capitals to show emphasis – since boldface is not an option. But use sparingly.
participants (1)
-
Julie Hedlund