[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Jul 16 16:52:08 EEST 2018
I know, I think after looking at how the IPC and the BC win all the time
it comes down to one word: Customers. They are huge customers of the
registrars, and that might explain why they are caving on this. I will
give it another try but they are jumping all over claiming we have
agreed to this in the small group. Support from my fellow councillors
would be helpful.
The drafts and shift back and forth from google to word documents has
made it extremely hard to track changes. I had this problem on the EWG
as well.
See my detailed responses below in bold
On 2018-07-16 02:43, farzaneh badii wrote:
>
> Stephanie
>
>
> IPC questions which are now in section J, have to be 1. ideally
> removed *I am ready to give up on that, tried again Sunday and
> failed. Suggest we put a footnote (derogation) in, and refer to it
> every time they start work on the model once the EPDP starts.* 2.be
> <http://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. *Good idea to move it. will try that *and 3. questions
> reworded to reflect its a group question and everyone agreed
> on*Suggest some edits
> *
>
>
> 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?
>
*I am not sure that the order of these questions is important, but it is
a good catch. Needs to be noted or change the order*
>
> 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". *Agreed*
>
>
> 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.
>
*I actually think that Keith acknowledged that my edits were helpful,
and certainly Pam Little did. Unfortunately Caitlin's notes anonymized
comments. Hard to follow.*
>
>
> 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.
>
*OK will try that*
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>
> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>
> CC: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
> <mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> Donna.Austin at team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
> <Donna.Austin at team.neustar> <mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>,
> marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
> <marika.konings at icann.org> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>,
> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
> <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>,
> haforrestesq at gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>
> <haforrestesq at gmail.com> <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>,
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <mailto: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] *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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180716/6e674721/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list