AC Chat: 2018-11-28 Consolidated Policy Working Group Call
- Yesim Saglam
- Aleksey Khapchenko
Yesim Nazlar: (11/28/2018 14:16) Welcome to the At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call taking place on Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 12:00 UTC
Yesim Nazlar: (14:16) Agenda: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/4vjvBQ
Alan Greenberg: (14:48) DId Hadia send the presentation?
Yesim Nazlar: (14:51) Haven't received a presentation, yet
Yesim Nazlar: (14:51) Do you have a presentation Alan?
Alan Greenberg: (14:52) Yes. Will send.
Yesim Nazlar: (14:52) perfect, thank you
Maureen Hilyard: (14:53) Hi all on chat only
Holly Raiche: (14:57) 2 Jonathan - do you want to use the first few minutes for the other issues while Alan gets ready?
Jonathan Zuck: (14:58) sure
Jonathan Zuck: (14:58) not sure what that is but I can mention a couple things. we don't have too many folks yet
Maureen Hilyard: (15:03) I support Sebastian's request for more comments on the Auction Proceeds.. and as Alan says two more weeks
Marita Moll: (15:05) I have been tied up all week with our out reach event today so will have more time to look into sub. procedures and auctions next week
Maureen Hilyard: (15:05) Thank you Marita
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:06) I don't see that this eeting has started being recorded
Heidi Ullrich: (15:07) Welcome, All.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:07) I still don't see the recording icon...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:08) Ahh OK then
Yesim Nazlar: (15:08) :)
A-EduardoDiaz: (15:14) So in the ICANN context - Who is the Data Controller and who is the Data Processor?
Satish Babu: (15:14) Also, there can be a chain of Data Processors...
Hadia Elminiawi: (15:17) @satish in our case examples of processors are the registrars and resellers and we might have cases of joint controllers
Satish Babu: (15:19) Thanks @Hadia
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:27) Back in Purpose 6 (for example) where there is a discussion still on a term used to allow us to understand the issue of term choice/discussion can we see the wors alternates in [square brackets] perhaps?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:30) exactly @Hadia
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:31) So the word "Coordinat" can be in [...] then
Hadia Elminiawi: (15:33) @Cheryl - there are no other suggestions yet - some want coordinate to be removed as they do not really see what a coordinating role has to do with the processing of the data - operationalize does for sure relate to data processing
Hadia Elminiawi: (15:33) @Cheryl ok ,, got it
Jonathan Zuck: (15:36) how do we get clarity on that? if it's going to fufull the other purposes it has to be accurate
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:37) But contact details is rfelevent to a purpose.... Yes
Holly Raiche: (15:39) @ Marita - that is different issue. The 2012 Final Report acknolwedged that one of the reasons for inaccurate data was that people (for good or bad reasons) do not want information about them displayed. That can be addressed through the use of privacy/proxy services.
Yesim Nazlar: (15:41) @Alan: Olivier wanted to speak as well
Jonathan Zuck: (15:41) and Sebastien as well Alan
Holly Raiche: (15:42) At this stage, is there any hope of ending this call within the 90 minute timeframe?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:42) OK as long as the change gets perculated through
Jonathan Zuck: (15:44) that sucks!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:45) I have had an issue where an Error (a data subject contact phone contact phine number) had transcription by a Dtat Cintroller error and that error ended up promulgated widely (through to a number of other Domain Names associated with the NIC Handle... it took years to correct the error after promulgation and really only after the Registry was sold to a new entity... (actually it was after 2 successive sales.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:47) That menat the Registrant data was wrong for several years and that was not fixed dispite registrant efforts to do so... it was a small effect on only 29 Domian Names but the issue could have been larger...
Jonathan Zuck: (15:47) that one allows bulk access?
Holly Raiche: (15:48) @ CLO - that is an accuracy issue - as raised by the 2013 Report, and resulted in amendments to the 2013 RAA and specification.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:48) Well it was caused by a Data processor error JZ but neither controller or subject was able to easily fix
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:48) I know it is an accuracy issue
Hadia Elminiawi: (15:50) @alan sure
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:51) Sorry error in habd
Holly Raiche: (15:51) I'm not as sure about strong support. I need to consider and I know both John LaPrise and Bastiaan will have things to say
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:51) and I dropped audio at the same time :-(
Jonathan Zuck: (15:53) for the discussions
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (15:55) Yes thus my agreement JZ
Marita Moll: (15:57) I could see a case for public safety but I'm not sure about including IP
Jonathan Zuck: (16:01) @Marita, again this is just about what we are open to discussing going forward. That said, on substance, there's a very high correlation between copyright infringement and maleware and a high correlation between trademark infringement and phishing another consumer protection issues. Important not to reject "IP" because we're frustrated by the IPC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:02) I beleive a Tecj COntact *is a equired field*
Marita Moll: (16:02) @Jonathan -- thanks for your thoughts on this
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:02) + Cheryl
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:03) + 1 on having the technical contact
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:04) There should be a single point of contact for all issues: technical and billing and whaetever else
Satish Babu: (16:04) :-)
Joanna Kulesza: (16:04) Hi all, apologies for arriving late.
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:05) at a minimum registrars should be required to offer the option to the registrants
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:05) I think deletion of existing date needs Registrant approval
Sivasubramanian M: (16:07) Usually how long is it before the recording of a call is posted?
Gordon Chillcott: (16:08) Optionally collected, yes.
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:08) so if we agree with holly lets put it in our statement
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:08) I think a single point of contact for everything is suficient
Holly Raiche: (16:08) If we want to have technical/admin issues to be resolved, the information must be collected
Holly Raiche: (16:09) At the least, there should be a technical contact
Jonathan Zuck: (16:09) concerned we're getting lost in less important topics with a lot to discuss
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:09) @Holly: contact teh single point of contact and then letr that person find his/her technical to do whatever.
Holly Raiche: (16:09) @ JZ - agree
Holly Raiche: (16:10) @ Ed - as long as there is a place to go...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:10) as a host of web services, I have had clients Contact details in for exampe the Tech fields replaced to Registry identifiers when the data services are sold to new Data Contollers and it takes going though hell and high water to get them back to Registrant or Registrant preferred Identifiers They may not wish to have Registrant , Admin and Tech all being identical....
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:10) @Holly: minimum yo need a point of coantc - yes
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:10) conatct
Harold Arcos: (16:10) @Eduardo; the issue is that usually for billing purpose the full address is required, at least in my country.
Yesim Nazlar: (16:10) @Hadia: please use the phone bridge as your audio on AC is not that good
Sivasubramanian M: (16:11) @A-Eduardo As long as the single point of contact "owns" all responsibilities for tech, admin and business communication
Jonathan Zuck: (16:11) we need to choose our battles
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:11) My hosting services runs with auto renewal of names, so billing is never an isse
Holly Raiche: (16:11) agree withJZ
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:12) Agree with Greg on the bifurication on this matter Admin data
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:12) @HArold: What I am saying is that a single poit of coantc for evrything is only what is needed. That manin point of contat should contain the address too.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:13) all good with Escrow
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:13) @Cheryl: +1
Harold Arcos: (16:13) oh yeah @Ed,,,that is good point.
Holly Raiche: (16:14) Compliance should be one of the bodies that has access under a gated system
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:14) Agree with "ease of access" to data for compliance ... on a Name by Neme basis not bulk
Gordon Chillcott: (16:14) Agree with Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:14) Agree @Holly
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:15) a polling style table makes sense to me JZ
Holly Raiche: (16:15) @ JZ - That would work for me
Heidi Ullrich: (16:15) @All, we have 15 mins until the scheduled end of this call. We have approval to extend by 10 mins.
Marita Moll: (16:16) Will we have access to these slides to study later?
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:16) thank you alan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:17) I am fine with the fialds in Rec #8 for public WHois
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:18) and support the redacted
Yesim Nazlar: (16:18) @Alan: Olivier wants to speak
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:19) Why is teh organization importnat?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:20) Organisation Name as an option makes sense (I agree with @Alan and @Hadia on this
Heidi Ullrich: (16:20) @All, we have an extension of 10 mins.
Harold Arcos: (16:21) @Marita, usually will be stored in the Agenda page after call or immediately
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:21) Indeed OCL!!!
Jonathan Zuck: (16:21) is this really controversial?
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:21) If its an option , why then is importnat to have?
Harold Arcos: (16:22) +1 @Eduardo. In some countries is very sensitive information.
Marita Moll: (16:23) So make it optional? seems reasonable
Maureen Hilyard: (16:23) makes sense if the registrant agrees
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:24) can we find the beeping line and mute it please
Yesim Nazlar: (16:25) @Cheryl: Sorry, located
Jonathan Zuck: (16:26) agree
Sivasubramanian M: (16:26) +1
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:26) Thx
Maureen Hilyard: (16:26) +1
Abdulkarim Oloyede: (16:28) I think that it is better that to make it unversal no matter the region or geographical location
Jonathan Zuck: (16:28) agree with your position as stated
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:28) We do have an additional 10 mins Alan
Joanna Kulesza: (16:28) Isn't this extraterritorial effect the very point of GDPR?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:28) and Yes I agree woth the points articulated on this Alan
Joanna Kulesza: (16:29) the spill-over effect, so to speak?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:29) Agree @Greg
Marita Moll: (16:29) @abdulkarim I agree. Other jurisdictions are moving in this direction
Abdulkarim Oloyede: (16:29) Yes and it is better to be proactive
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:30) I do understand why a Registrar prefers 1 set of rules of course
Satish Babu: (16:30) There could still be issues in harmonizing local laws with GDPR if we make the same allowance for non-Europe geographies.
Sivasubramanian M: (16:31) No Tijani
Jonathan Zuck: (16:31) and THEIR rules might be about collecting MORE data
Sivasubramanian M: (16:31) I will NOT be a miss. No Tijani
Sivasubramanian M: (16:32) It will not be
Abdulkarim Oloyede: (16:32) @Jonathan, in reality it cant be to collect more data
Jonathan Zuck: (16:32) exactly
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:32) we already had 10 min extension
Joanna Kulesza: (16:33) If this issue is so contentious should we decide to have a CPWG call devoted to this? or is this not hwo it's usually tackled?
Joanna Kulesza: (16:33) *how
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:33) Agree with you totally on this point @Hadia and Alan support this
Jonathan Zuck: (16:34) @Abdulkarim of course it can. Not more than now but more than gets decided as part of this process. It's very possible that there will be different accuracy rules, different consumer protection laws, etc. that will make it important for registrars to differentiate
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:43) I still prefer Thick Whois
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:44) @Alan well yes it is the beginning
Holly Raiche: (16:44) I think we all would like acess to the slides and then provide comment of line
Holly Raiche: (16:45) I trust this call has ended?
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:45) Thank you Alan
Maureen Hilyard: (16:46) Great work by Alan and Hadia.. much appreciate everyone here contributing to the discussion :)
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:46) Thank you Maureen
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:46) We always knew this would be a hell of a lot of work, and a thankless task ( But thanks @Alan and @Hadia) but we as a community must also work hard to back you up with discussion and input at this stage
Joanna Kulesza: (16:48) Thanks for all your work, guys.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:48) That sonds great JZ
Marita Moll: (16:49) Yes, great presentation. Thanks very much for that
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:50) Don't forget there is a webinar this Thursday 14:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:51) INdeed @Hadia publicise this one and the upcoming one
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:51) @right now - there is not much substance
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:52) Thnak you all bye
A-EduardoDiaz: (16:52) Gracias and Bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@clo3): (16:52) Bye for now
Abdulkarim Oloyede: (16:52) Bye
Kaili Kan: (16:52) Bye!
Gordon Chillcott: (16:52) Bye for now.
Heidi Ullrich: (16:52) Bye, All.
Harold Arcos: (16:52) Thanks all,,,bye bye