[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope

Mon Jul 16 09:43:07 EEST 2018

Stephanie

IPC questions which are now in section J,   have to be  1. ideally removed
2.be moved to after data processing terms. If it cannot be turned into a
group question or a member of the drafting objects to it, it should not be
included. this is not a document that IPC can insert as many  questions as
it wants, it's a document that sets the scope of EPDP. and 3.
questions reworded
to reflect its a group question and everyone agreed on

IPC has moved up many of the questions which are already asked under
"systems for standardized access" up in section J and before Part 3. Is it
even possible to respond to J, while Part 3 questions have not been
answered? Part 3 asks important questions about data processing. For
example it asks:

"k1) For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and
registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine
the purpose and means of processing?"

How is it possible, to come up with an ICANN "access" policy, which you
will be doing if you discuss J - before asking which data processing ICANN
determine the purpose and means of processing?

 How are you going to provide access under ICANN policy to data that is not
actually collected because of ICANN purpose!

What they did really in this document was to creep in "access and
accreditation" into the primary phase of the scope. So section J has to be
removed. If it is not possible, it has to move after Part 3. Most of
section J can be addressed under "systems for standardized access".

If that is not possible either, another thing that could be done is to
bring all the question under section 3 before J.

I have made changes to these questions and reworded them and attached them.

*Your edits Stephanie do not expand the scope of the EPDP.* Unlike IPC
questions, there are not so many additional questions that change the
document and its scope. IPC's questions certainly are expanding the
scope, putting answers instead of questions in the scope and we need to
inform everyone about this.

Also remind them that J1(B) which is still in the document, it  was flagged
(it was j6 at the time) and was not removed way before the deadline. Adding
Caitlin's note on the doc:  Note from 9 July Call re: addition of proposed
j6: We need to be cautious about including this level of language in the
charter.  This does not recognize the importance of the gating questions
that we have described or the tiered access approach.  These individual use
cases and requestors of data will be on a spectrum.  The group needs to be
cautious about including this level of language in the charter.  We need to
focus first and foremost on questions coming up with questions of
legitimate use based on the various types of requests.

GNSO council leaders asked the Board whether "UAM" should be in the scope
of EPDP considering ICANN org came up with UAM, should they consider
discussing it. Board gave one of its typical nonanswers:

"As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more
quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the
unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to
align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the
relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more
appropriate to address this matter together going forward. "
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-council-24jun18-en.pdf

ICANN keeps saying it is seeking legal clarity on issues relevant to access
and if DPAs clarifications go against EPDP recommendations on access, it
will of course follow DPAs advice. so in effect what ICANN is saying is
that I have created a parallel process which I will be working on, you can
do whatever you want in EPDP  and then we can exchange notes. We could
explain this during the drafting team meetings and see if they can be
convinced that we get some time until some of the questions related to
Access has been responded to by the DPAs.

Thanks for all the work.

Farzaneh

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:00 PM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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> <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> CC: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com> <PMcGrady at winston.com>,
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Donna.Austin at team.neustar
> <Donna.Austin at team.neustar> <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>,
> marika.konings at icann.org <marika.konings at icann.org>
> <marika.konings at icann.org>, caitlin.tubergen at icann.org
> <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org> <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>,
> haforrestesq at gmail.com <haforrestesq at gmail.com> <haforrestesq at gmail.com>,
> rafik.dammak 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>
> 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>
>> 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 <kdrazek at verisign.com>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 6:20 PM
>> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
>> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca; susankpolicy at gmail.com;
>> Donna.Austin at team.neustar; marika.konings at icann.org;
>> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org; haforrestesq at gmail.com;
>> 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>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:29 PM
>> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca; susankpolicy at gmail.com;
>> Donna.Austin at team.neustar; marika.konings at icann.org;
>> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org; haforrestesq at gmail.com;
>> 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 14th 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 <kdrazek at verisign.com>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 2:49 PM
>> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
>> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca; susankpolicy at gmail.com;
>> Donna.Austin at team.neustar; marika.konings at icann.org;
>> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org; haforrestesq at gmail.com;
>> 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>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 1:36 PM
>> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca; susankpolicy at gmail.com;
>> Donna.Austin at team.neustar; marika.konings at icann.org;
>> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org; haforrestesq at gmail.com;
>> 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.”  13th 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
>> <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>
>> *Cc:* 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>
>> 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
>> 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.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> 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/20180716/fb4c165c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018-FB.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37395 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180716/fb4c165c/attachment.docx>