[Info ] Notes and Recordings Council Webinar on next steps regarding temporary policy in relation to GDPR compliance

Mon May 21 19:56:04 EEST 2018

Hi all,

Please find here and attached the recordings and notes for the webinar held
today with GNSO council and SG/C leadership to discuss next steps regarding
the temporary specification since such it initiates a process to come with
a consensus policy to confirm or replace the temporary policy. as GNSO
council is the policy manager for gTLD, it is taking ownership of the
matter and discussing what should be taken as action.

 you can find the recordings:

   - MP3:
   https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gdpr-compliance-temporary-policy-next-steps-21may18-en.mp3
   - Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9az32xuzvu/
   <https://participate.icann.org/p9az32xuzvu/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0d56dfabb1e399a601c2e50edc78ad9da59687b5c9871332cbe14e6cd14c2cc8>

 We will discuss in more details during the NCSG Policy Call this Tuesday
at 12:00UTC and prepare for GNSO council call this  Thursday.

Best Regards,

Rafik Dammak

NCSG Policy Committee Chair

==============================

*Notes and Action items next steps regarding temporary policy in relation
to GDPR compliance on Monday 21 May 2018 at 21:00 UTC.*

See proposed agenda & slides:

   - Background
   - Current status & objectives
   - Proposed immediate next steps
   - Questions
   - Reference slides: EPDP Initiation Request / Draft EPDP Timeline
   - Discussion & next steps

Objective of today's meeting is to discuss procedure and process, not
substance. A number of procedural steps that need to be decided upon first,
substance is for subsequent discussions.

Flexibility likely needed in the charter as there is a likelihood that
there may be further changes to the temporary specification as the Board is
required to renew the temporary specification every 90 days. Will need to
confirm with the Board whether changes are possible or whether it is only a
reconfirmation of the originally adopted temporary specification. If
changes are possible, what impact does that have on the PDP, does the clock
restart?

Need clarification from the Board on intention and exact scope of the PDP.
Are multiple tracks within the PDP an option or if the scope is narrow
question, or would a parallel PDP be needed to consider a possible
wholesale replacement for the temporary specification? Need to get clarity
on which tracks are on 1 year clock and whether other tracks may have more
flexibility.

Need to see list of policies and contractual clauses that are impacted by
the temporary specification.

*Proposed Immediate Next Steps* (slide 5)

*Action item #1*: Need to confirm who would be on a follow up call with the
ICANN Board (discuss during Thursday's Council meeting - 24 May)

*Action item #2*: If an EPDP is to be initiated, need to put together a
drafting team to develop proposed EPDP Initiation Request.

*Action item #3*: Schedule additional Council meeting, possibly for 14 June
(if agreement that it would be helpful to be able to consider possible EPDP
Initiation Request prior to Panama)

*Questions *(slide 6)

*EPDP *

   - Expedited PDP seems to be the only option that would meet the
   timetable available.
   - EPDP has to be initiated by Council. Supermajority support needed
   which means that nearly everyone needs to be on board with this approach if
   this path is chosen. If Council does nothing, Board will initiate a PDP
   which would take Council partly out of the driver's seat.
   - Need to ensure that cope of work is realistic to deliver on within a
   year.
   - May need an implementation check-list / parallel track that keeps
   track in parallel of implementation and implementation related issues to
   not have any kind of delay at the end of the process.
   - Feedback from RDS PDP leadership team was that it was not feasible to
   repurpose that WG - Council will need to consider what happens with that
   effort in the meantime. Council to consider whether to terminate or suspend
   the PDP. See process outlined in the PDP Manual. May need direction from
   RDS PDP leadership team. May first need to understand the requirements of
   this effort, but doubt that it is possible to continue the RDS PDP WG at
   the same time as the EPDP.
   - Need to decide which issues need to be decided within 365 days, which
   issues can be dealt with on a separate track or work stream 2 kind of
   approach.

*EPDP Team Composition *(see options outlined in attached possible next
steps document)

   - In order for this to succeed, it needs a relatively small and
   committed group, willing to work towards consensus.
   - Need to keep group small.
   - Consider read-only access to mailing list for non-members (publicly
   archived) to keep discussions focused.
   - Need to think of ways to make it inclusive/transparent while keeping
   it effective.
   - Responsibility and representation is key. Members would need to buy-in
   / sign off on the responsibilities associated with being a member. Need to
   work with respective groups that have appointed member to ensure positions
   are agreed to / signed off on.
   - Lessons learned from RDS PDP WG may help in avoiding mistakes
   previously made.
   - SG/Cs could apply mechanisms that were used in the CWG-Stewardship
   related work for internal discussions and consultations.
   - Consider also the input provided in response to PDP3.0 discussions.
   - CCWG minus model may meet requirements - not too exclusive or too
   inclusive to be disruptive.
   - Cannot have people coming in cold - need some level of expertise /
   knowledge on the subject.
   - Consider limiting membership to max 2 members per SG, instead of 3.

*EPDP Leadership*

   - May be difficult to find someone with no strong position.
   - Need clear and direct link to Council. Is liaison role the right one
   here or is something different needed. If a liaison is appointed, this
   would be a major responsibility.
   - Could/should Council leadership take a proactive role?
   - Need to balance Council involvement so that it is not to the detriment
   of other PDPs.

*EPDP Working Methods*

   - How to optimize F2F time and is more F2F time needed? Until exact
   scope is known, it may be difficult to determine what additional F2F time
   is needed, if any. Could consider meeting prior to ICANN meetings like
   CCWG-Accountability? Look at experience of other groups.
   - Resources needed will need to be part of the discussion with the Board
   as it has not been specifically budgeted for (as this was not on the cards
   when original budget was developed).
   - Need mechanism to inform broader community - for example, monthly
   general assembly.

*Timeline - *See slide 10

   - Council needs to set this up for success. Need to identify all
   questions, all variables so that when it is handed over to the EPDP, the
   Council has done the best it can in doing the necessary preparatory work to
   allow EPDP team to focus on the substance. Try to get it in a good position
   to kick things off at ICANN62 in Panama.

*Action item #4:* discuss on Council meeting on Thursday 24 May formation
of drafting team to draft EPDP initiation request as well as EPDP Charter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180521/14902948/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Possible next steps RDS - 10 May 2018.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 25619 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180521/14902948/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Slides - RDS Informational Webinar - FINAL 21 May 2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 292902 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180521/14902948/attachment.pdf>