[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Fri Jan 5 19:03:43 EET 2018
THanks, this is very helpful.
cheers STephanie
PS meeting yesterday was a non-event, too many absentees
________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Sent: January 5, 2018 7:45:35 AM
To: Stephanie Perrin
Cc: ncsg-pc
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
Hi Stephanie,
Thanks,
if I am not mistaking the drafting group is tasked to provide a charter for a possible new IAG to handle the comments receive and see how to accommodate that with the previous implementation. so I guess the focus would be in term of the process here, the charter list 3 options. all are open compared to the previous IAG iteration. however, I would be concerned with CCWG and GNSO review models due to the question of representation from SG/C compared to an open model. the 2 first models have appointed representatives which may give a weight in term of decision-making. I have less concerns with Chair selection models, while I won't support IRT one with GDD manager as chair.
I don't see any specific concern with the mission and scope.
Best,
Rafik
2018-01-04 4:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
Hi folks,
I volunteered for the small drafting team at council who are working on the development of a new charter for an Implementation Advisory Group for the WHOIS conflicts with law. I was on the IAG for the last trigger discussion, and submitted a dissenting opinion. The DPAs declared this whole thing a nonsense, in their last comments on the procedure. If you have any comments on this procedure that you wish me to convey, please let me know....next meeting is tomorrow.
Cheers Stephanie
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 19:34:01 +0000
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org><mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com><mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>, kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com><mailto:icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com><mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
CC: gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Dear All,
Best wishes for 2018!
In preparation for tomorrow’s meeting, please find below as a reminder the notes & action items from the last meeting. Attached you will find the draft charter as originally circulated. If you already have any feedback / input from your respective groups that you would like to share ahead of the meeting, please share with this list.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org><mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 22:03
To: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com><mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com"<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com><mailto:icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com><mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
Dear All,
Further, please find some informal notes and actions items that staff collected during the course of the meeting. The recording of course is the authoritative record.
Best,
Steve
----------------------
GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts on Monday 18 18 December 2017 at 2000 UTC
Notes/Action Items:
-- Heather to serve as facilitator/champion for this process, but in a neutral way.
-- Keith happy to hold pen and can rely on Marc Anderson for IAG context.
-- What's process for the draft charter? Staff role to develop? What's available now is the standard template with key questions flagged and possible options. Should take care in drafting charter as it could serve as precedent for future review efforts.
-- The procedure is a matter of implementation No standard procedure for reviewing an implementation of GNSO adopted resolutions.
-- Look forward to getting input from Michele and Stephanie.
-- Discussion could begin on this call, help ensure that this effort does not repeat inability to reach conclusion the first go around.
-- Keep scope and timeline narrow
-- What's the current situation? What is the subsequent group expected to accomplish? Marika Konings: the procedure has been updated with a new trigger, per the recommendations of the previous IAG.
-- The recommendations of the subsequent group would be in reference to an already implemented policy. The recommendations would be treated differently than a PDP then,.
-- Question: is the implementation, or suggested modifications, consistent with the underlying policy recommendations? Or is additional policy work needed?
-- Most focus has been on the trigger. Some review of the subsequent steps after triggering may be important.
-- This process will help provide guidance for the future to understand roles of community and staff.
-- How does GDPR fit into this exercise as it relates to Whois? The current trigger does seem to fit under GDPR, but is an unattractive option.
-- There is GDPR-specific relief (e.g., relief against compliance). Problem of the day.
-- And there is relief related to ANY local privacy law, more generically. The trigger(s) being explored are not GDPR specific.
-- The scope of this review, is it just limited to focusing on Whois? It seems to be the case: Marika Konings: From the underlying policy recommendations: In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via Whois, ICANN should.......
-- The trigger of going to a national regulator does not seem to be working. Explore an additional trigger(s) to initiate waiver process.
-- Is there evidence of the trigger not working? Or are CP just unwilling to write to national regulators to ask if they are violating local law? It seems to require an admission of guilt to get the waiver.
-- There is some interest in reviewing the underlying the policy, which would require a different process. That might be what has caused this topic to linger on Council list.
-- Public comment provides possible issues with alternative trigger. Seems to imply that you must already be in violation to utilize waiver.
-- Could limit the scope of what is reviewed (e.g., the public comment and Akram letter). And also note that if policy issues are uncovered, that they would be resolved through another mechanism.
-- Whatever recommendations this IAG would put forth to Council, the Council would need to confirm that they are not inconsistent with underlying policy recommendations.
-- Could group also explore other ideas beyond previous IAG? Should avoid just repeating the outcomes of previous IAG.
-- How to narrow scope? Start with public comments?
Keith Drazek: (1) Review current implementation; (2) re-consider previous triggers not agreed to; (3) consider other possible triggers not previously considered; (4) review everything based on existing public comments.
-- Other areas of focus: objectives and goals, membership (seems like it should include those outside Council), chair selection (could follow from group composition), group formation, dependencies, and dissolution (also follow from group/review team composition), decision-making (also dependent).
-- Key questions are scope and composition. Take these to respective SG/Cs.
-- Agreement that composition is paramount and drives many other elements (chair, staff support). Will the group operate more like an IRT or WG? Who serves as the lead (e.g., staff or community)?
-- Hopefully table for January meeting (20 Jan document and motions deadline).
ACTION: Take draft charter to respective SG/Cs and convene again in early January?
ACTION: Set up Doodle for early Jan or week of the 8th.
From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:55 PM
To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com><mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com"<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com><mailto:icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com><mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org><mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please find below the AC recording, attendance and AC chat transcript of the GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts scheduled on Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2q6sp8ir36/<https://participate.icann.org/p2q6sp8ir36/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=da98784bd396b38e57f1d982b189a0a8f647aa1f7e8f2c7c1c2566602aaf4d91>
Attendance: Pam Little, Keith Drazek, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady,
Apology: Michele Neylon
Staff: Marika Konings, Steve Chan, Nathalie Peregrine
AC Chat:
Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts on Monday 18 December 2017 at 2000 UTC
Nathalie Peregrine:Public Comment: Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law: Process and Next Steps: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dlaw-2D2017-2D05-2D03-2Den&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=adugQauUKQvuUEMdEec1VcDBdyG9osdhkqinwHG6ad0&e=
Nathalie Peregrine:Letter from Akram Atallah to GNSO Council re the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_correspondence_atallah-2Dto-2Dbladel-2Det-2Dal-2D01aug17-2Den.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=ynH32qa5Y9sFgNk_mo6bzIjPiNm0dL5Sc3B1RWP0UJo&e=
Pam Little:Hi Everyone
Marika Konings:Staff could put this into the form of a google doc and have you provide comments / edits on the different sections?
Marika Konings:Note that an update on this topic has also been foreseen for Thursday's Council meeting that would allow you to flag certain items for Council input, which may help inform your subsequent deliberations and decision on some of the items outlined in the document.
Pam Little:I will try to dial in by phone
Pam Little:Please carry out for a moment
Nathalie Peregrine:You need to activate your AC mic, by clicking on the telehpne icon at the top of the toolbar
Nathalie Peregrine:this will also allow you to dial out to yourself should you prefer to connect via the phone.
Marika Konings:the procedure has been updated with a new trigger, per the recommendations of the previous IAG.
Marika Konings:my understanding is that the procedure is intended for individual registries / registrars, while the current discussion seems to deal with almost all contracted parties
Marika Konings:I guess the question is also whether GDPR is considered a 'local law'?
Keith Drazek:I'm in Adobe now. Apologies
Heather Forrest:Great Keith - thanks
Marika Konings:I believe the underlying policy only focuses on WHOIS
Heather Forrest:I understood that we were dealing specifically with WHOIS conflicts?
Keith Drazek:It's focused on WHOIS and conflicts with national privacy laws, correct?
Marika Konings:From the underlying policy recommendations: In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via Whois, ICANN should.......
Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika
Marika Konings:so it is limited to WHOIS
Keith Drazek:Yes
Pam Little:That's what I thought too
Marika Konings:For those interested in reviewing the original report that forms the basis for the procedure: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_tf-2Dfinal-2Drpt-2D25oct05.htm&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=FztMCfR9oT5btckkoo2gqrwFNOiZ9GJ3kDs5ChhSVhg&e=
Paul McGrady:Got it. Retracting my prior comment about how broad this is.
Heather Forrest:Thanks, Marika, for that link to the original report. I intend to re-read that this week.
Heather Forrest:+1 Keith re focus on trigger
Heather Forrest:It's in drifting discussion away from the trigger that we've gotten bogged down on this in Council for the past year and a half or so... this is NOT about the underlying policy
Pam Little:Thank you all for the comments and clarifications.
Keith Drazek:Totally agree, this is not GDPR-specific at all.
Marika Konings:If you review the report of public comments, you'll find some feedback on possible issues with the alternative trigger.
Keith Drazek:I don't think we want to re-open the policy.
Keith Drazek:The CPH thinks that the policy is solid, it's just the current implementation needs adjustment.
Heather Forrest:@Marika - good suggestion to ask the group to work with the public comments
Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika, very helpful.
Keith Drazek:(1) Review current implementation; (2) re-consider previous triggers not agreed to; (3) consider other possible triggers not previously considered; (4) review everything based on existing public comments.
Marika Konings:we may need to further emphasize in the charter that the trigger is just the first step in the procedure, there are quite a few steps that follow to make sure that everyone is clear on that.
Keith Drazek:Agreed Heather re composition
Marika Konings:note there are also a couple of options you may want to consider for composition / representation
Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika, that's important for the precedent-setting nature of our work.
Keith Drazek:@Marika, are those options in the document staff developed? Apologies for not knowing
Heather Forrest:OK - let's focus our attention for charter on (1) scope/objective and (2) composition, and take input from our respective SG/Cs on these two key points
Keith Drazek:Let's do early the week of the 8th
Keith Drazek:+1 Paul
Heather Forrest:I agree Keith - doc deadline should be around the 20th
Marika Konings:is it helpful to put this in a google doc format to facilitate your input or you prefer to share feedback via email?
Nathalie Peregrine:Doc deadline is the 20th jan.
Marika Konings:makes sense :-)
Nathalie Peregrine:Of course.
Keith Drazek:Sounds like a plan. Thanks to staff for prepping the document that I need to review more carefully.
Keith Drazek:Thanks Heather!
Pam Little:Thanks everyone. Bye now
Marika Konings:thanks all
Heather Forrest:Thanks everyone
Kind regards,
Nathalie
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180105/1b6f0fa4/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list