Dear Julie/All, I’m not sure the way forward outlined by staff below is the right approach. GDPR has significant but not immediately obvious detrimental impacts on both economic activity and people’s wellbeing. I therefore believe we as a working group should ensure that all ICANN policies we interact with do not compound those failings With this in mind and in light of the public concerns that have been raised I wondered if I could ask that we consider the following way forward for recommendation #1 *The default position is to publish the underlying respondent data, however: If the complainant is successful the panellist has the discretion to withhold publication If the respondent is successful the respondent may require publication to be withheld* Clearly there are different interests to be balanced but given URS’s higher burden of proof I do not believe this suggested way forward pulls the tablecloth, so to speak, towards any particular interest. Would this be sufficiently nuanced to build consensus? Kind regards, Paul On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 3:28 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sub Group B members,
As a reminder please see the request below and note that responses are due by *COB today, 01 June.*
Kind regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie
*From: *GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB <gnso-rpms-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 6:03 PM *To: *"gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org" <gnso-rpms-wg-sgb@icann.org> *Subject: *[GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB] RESPONSE REQUESTED: Options on URS Question #1
Dear Sub Group B members,
Per the following action item re: URS Question #1 captured from today’s RPMs PDP WG Sub Group B meeting that the Co-Chairs and staff will formulate two options for the Sub Group to consider and take them to the list, please see the following options below and indicate your preference. If you have another option to suggest please provide the text of the option.
*Please provide your response by COB Monday, 01 June*.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Kind regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie
*With respect to URS Questions 1a and 1b (see below) please indicate your preference for how the Sub Group should proceed in its summary to the full WG:*
*Option 1:*
*The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b and the recommendation of the Sub Group is that the full WG should revisit these questions and the responses to them.*
*Option 2:*
*The Sub Group should in its summary to the WG report that there were strong differences of opinion and a variety of responses to URS Questions 1a and 1b, but in the absence of any high-level of agreement the WG does not need to take further action with respect to URS Question 1.*
URS Question #1:
1a. Should URS Rule 15(a) be amended to clarify that, where a Complaint has been updated with registration data provided to the Complainant by the URS Provider, there must be an option for the Determination to be published without the updated registration data?
1b. If so, when, by whom, and how should this option be triggered?
1c. Are there any operational considerations that will need to also be addressed in triggering this option?
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB mailing list GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGB@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpms-wg-sgb
_______________________________________________ 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.