[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Jul 16 06:00:46 EEST 2018
Predictably enough, Susan is demanding exactly what I told Keith would
happen...immediate development of the implementation of the access model
SP
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:44:27 -0700
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
CC: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>,
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
Donna.Austin at team.neustar <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>,
marika.konings at icann.org <marika.konings at icann.org>,
caitlin.tubergen at icann.org <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>,
haforrestesq at gmail.com <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, rafik.dammak at gmail.com
<rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Hello All,
I had intermittent access to the internet this weekend. A few comments.
It appears that we use the term "Registration" data and "Registrant"
data interchangeably in the document. I think it would be more concise
to replace Registrant for Registration through out the document.
Registration data is not at issue in the Temp Spec as it includes
generated data, registry and registrar data etc. along with the
Registrant data.
I am also concerned with the 3rd deliverable, as we agreed to move from
phase 2 on access to a staggered approach I think we should also give
the working group the option of dealing with the access piece in the
report when they feel it is appropriate. It imposes an unnecessary
restriction.
It also sets up the access issue to have absolutely no hope in being
resolved before the Temp Spec expires.
I somehow missed the fact that the ePDP would issue a Final report
without actually doing all their work. From a purely structural issue
is this possible. Usually when a Final report is issued the working
group is done and it moves on to an implementation phase.
Thank you for resolving the issue on the council voting I agree with
Paul on this issue.
Susan
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks very much Paul, I appreciate your response and agree with
your view on this. The Council would need to vote to approve a
motion objecting to the consensus of the WG. Otherwise the WG
consensus would stand.
Regards,
Keith
On Jul 15, 2018, at 9:45 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com
<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>> wrote:
> Thanks Keith. Your changes are fine with me so long as it is
> clear that the Council doesn’t have to take a vote on whether or
> not it objects. In other words, if the idea is that some portion
> of the GNSO community does object to the notion that the gating
> questions have been answered, they would need to bring a motion
> objecting and get it past the Council. If that is the case, that
> is fine with me. Thanks Keith!
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
> *From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 6:20 PM
> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com
> <mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>; susankpolicy at gmail.com
> <mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>; Donna.Austin at team.neustar
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; caitlin.tubergen at icann.org
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>; haforrestesq at gmail.com
> <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
> Paul and Stephanie,
>
> Please see my responses and proposed path forward inline in red
> font below.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com
> <mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:29 PM
> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>; susankpolicy at gmail.com
> <mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>; Donna.Austin at team.neustar
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; caitlin.tubergen at icann.org
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>; haforrestesq at gmail.com
> <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
> *Importance:* High
>
> Thanks Keith.
>
> Regarding Stephanie’s proposal to change “Does ICANN have
> additional responsibilities to the data subject beyond what is
> required by applicable law?” to “ICANN as a data controller has
> specific duties to the registrant or data subject under applicable
> law. What other other legal or other obligations should be noted
> by this EPDP WG in its analysis, including any duties that ICANN
> might have in its role as administrator of a finite resource in
> the Internet governance sphere?”
>
> Respectfully, I think the first sentence gets into answering
> questions rather than posing them – something we have tried to
> avoid from the beginning. I think Stephanie’s statement in that
> first new sentence is presupposed in the question which she
> proposes to delete. I think we should leave “Does ICANN have
> additional responsibilities to the data subject beyond what is
> required by applicable law?” and not include her first proposed
> new sentence.
>
> Regarding the second sentence “What other other legal or other
> obligations should be noted by this EPDP WG in its analysis,
> including any duties that ICANN might have in its role as
> administrator of a finite resource in the Internet governance
> sphere?” – I simply have no idea what this question is getting at.
> What finite resource? What is a governance sphere? Is there any
> way to tighten this up so that it’s meaning is clear? Assuming we
> can do that and that it is harmless when completed, I see no
> reason not to tack it on.
>
> KEITH: How about rephrasing this sentence as:
>
> “In addition to any specific duties ICANN may have as data
> controller, what other obligations should be noted by this EPDP
> WG, including any duties to registrants that are unique and
> specific to ICANN’s role as the administrator of policies and
> contracts governing gTLD domain names.”
>
> Lastly, and most importantly, I am opposed to this change: “and
> confirmation by the GNSO Council” seen here in its context: “The
> threshold for establishing “answered” for the gating questions
> shall be consensus of the WG and confirmation by the GNSO
> Council.” Since the only way for the Council to confirm something
> is through a vote, what this is proposing is that there must be a
> formal Council vote before we take up unified access model (or
> whatever Stephanie’s preferred term is). This is a de facto 2
> phase approach we have already argued over and agreed we wouldn’t
> do. This is important to the IPC, so it is a change we really
> can’t live with. I’m troubled to see this well settled argument
> rearing its head again. We made a lot of good faith compromises
> as a result of eliminating formal phasing – including cooperating
> with the “gating questions” idea you introduced. This feels like a
> 14^th hour bait and switch. I hope you will take it out.
>
> KEITH: How about changing the proposed affirmative approval
> threshold to non-objection, as follows:
>
> “Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above
> have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary
> Specification initial report. The threshold for establishing
> “answered” for the gating questions shall be consensus of the WG
> and non-objection by the GNSO Council.”
>
> Can you please confirm receipt? Thanks!
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
> KEITH: I hope this helps bridge the remaining gap and gets us to a
> final draft. If anyone has further thoughts or concerns, raise
> them now.
>
> Paul and Stephanie, please respond so I can nail this down and
> send to the DT list.
>
> Best,
>
> Keith
>
> *From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 2:49 PM
> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com
> <mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>; susankpolicy at gmail.com
> <mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>; Donna.Austin at team.neustar
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; caitlin.tubergen at icann.org
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>; haforrestesq at gmail.com
> <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
> Hi all,
>
> Attached is the latest version of the red-line with Stephanie’s
> edits incorporated. She and I just spoke on the phone and walked
> through them, and we both realized there was some confusion this
> morning around which version of Section J was most recent, but
> that’s now straightened out.
>
> According to Stephanie, NCSG still has significant concerns about
> any discussion of unified access/accreditation _models_ before
> finalizing the Initial Report. I explained the gating questions
> are designed to ensure we focus in the near term on the Temp Spec
> and answer the necessary questions before designing something with
> incomplete data.
>
> Paul and Susan, please review and let us know if these new edits
> are acceptable or if you have concerns. My goal is still to get
> this finalized tonight. The previous edits from the last version
> are still showing, and I noted the new edits from Stephanie by
> adding a comment box for each.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Keith
>
> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com
> <mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 1:36 PM
> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>; susankpolicy at gmail.com
> <mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>; Donna.Austin at team.neustar
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; caitlin.tubergen at icann.org
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>; haforrestesq at gmail.com
> <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
> Thanks Keith.
>
> Since you are doing some after-deadline edits, some on the IPC
> wonder whether the questions at c) are necessary gating questions
> for discussion of a unified access model. I admit that this is
> further in the weeds that I am comfortable, but I wonder if you
> could look at those again and see if they can be removed from the
> gating questions? If they can’t be removed, can I have a few
> sentences on why they need to be gating questions that I can send
> back to those who asked?
>
> Also, with after deadline changes form the NCUC, the IPC will need
> to be able to see what the proposed changes will be before we can
> agree that the draft charter is “final.” 13^th hour changes are
> sometimes benign or sometimes they are designed to try to get
> through changes at the last minute under pressure that the small
> team would not have agreed to earlier. So, I guess I will have to
> reserve judgment on those until we see them.
>
> Thanks so much and hang in there!
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
> *From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith
> via Epdp-dt
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 9:28 AM
> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
> *Cc:* Epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
>
> Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun
> and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt
> <epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed on Wednesday’s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached
> is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section.
>
> I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and
> did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has
> reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July
> Council meeting.
>
> Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort.
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx>
>
> <Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits
> CLEAN.docx>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Epdp-dt mailing list
> Epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C0921852e6c3241b372f308d5ea5f2fef%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636672616898611630&sdata=vxYmX%2FaQPOzgFPCOr57t3rR48fCa4%2FXGpNfssGVDt1w%3D&reserved=0>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential.
> If this message has been received in error, please delete it
> without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended
> to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this
> message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice
> contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be
> used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under
> applicable tax laws and regulations.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180715/2cd5cc4b/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list