Versions Compared

Old Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Andrea Glandon

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Andrea Glandon

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Info

PROPOSED AGENDA

  1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)


2. Feasibility of unique contacts [docs.google.com]

    a. Legal Committee to propose next steps for Thursday’s EPDP Meeting (draft proposal attached)

    b. Confirm next steps

3. City field redaction [docs.google.com]

    a. Review Matthew Crossman’s proposal (attached)

    b. Confirm next steps

4. Review outstanding “Batch 2” questions (attached)

    a. WHOIS accuracy/Legal vs. Natural
    b. Territorial Scope

5. Legal review of Initial Report

    a. Question to Legal Committee: is there any interest in sending the Initial Report’s executive summary or a subset of recommendations to Bird & Bird to flag overarching legal concerns?

    b. Confirm next steps

6. Wrap and confirm next Legal Committee Meeting

    a. TBD

    b. Confirm action items


BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

DRAFT LC proposal - feasibility of anonymized email addresses.pdf

EPDP Phase 2 Legal Questions_2 March.pdf


Info
titleRECORDINGS

Audio Recording

https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/usB7dOv7_W03SYfD4gSDAPd7W9S1ev6s0nIZr_Zfyke0VCMEO1r0NeQQNLbmroo9o8QgAiuEpFud2naFZoom Recording

Chat Transcript


Tip
titlePARTICIPATION

Attendance 

Apologies: Thomas Rickert

Alternates: 


Note

Notes/ Action Items

High Level Notes & Action Items

  1. Legal Committee signed off on draft proposal for Feasibility of Unique Contacts (attached). EPDP Support Staff to circulate the draft proposal to the EPDP Team by COB today, 3 March.
  2. Legal Committee reviewed Matthew’s draft summary of Bird & Bird’s Phase 1 city field memo, and approved the text with the addition of the following “chapeau”, “In reviewing this topic, the Legal Committee had additional commentary regarding the Bird & Bird advice: The scope of the memo below is about universal publication of the city field and not on address automated disclosure upon request or case-by-case review. Regarding bullet #2; A similar balancing test taking into account certain circumstances, may be appropriate in different situations, for example when responding to request for redacted city information whether by automated means or based on an individual review.
  3. EPDP Support Staff to incorporate the above-referenced chapeau into Matthew’s city field summary and distribute to the EPDP Team by COB today, 3 March. (see attached)
  4. Batch 2 questions:
    1. Legal vs. Natural + Accuracy: Legal Committee reviewed and signed off (except for NCSG rep) on the updated question with this addition: Who has standing to invoke the Accuracy Principle?  We understand that a purpose of the Accuracy Principle is to protect the Data Subject from harm resulting from the processing of inaccurate information.  Do others such as contracted parties and ICANN (as Controllers), law enforcement, IP rights holders, etc. have standing to invoke the Accuracy Principle under GDPR? ACTION: EPDP Support Staff to circulate the question with the approved addition to the EPDP Team, noting that NCSG does not agree with this question in principle. EPDP Team to provide further input on if this question is in scope prior to distribution to Bird & Bird.
    2. Territorial Scope: ACTION: Becky to further refine the draft territorial scope questions based on today’s discussion. Specifically: Under the proposed model described in the EPDP Team’s Initial Report, apart from automated disclosures, ICANN, as the Central Gateway Manager, would not be making disclosure decisions, but would provide recommendations on whether to disclose to the relevant contracted party.
    3. WHOIS Accuracy: LC signed off on the updates to this question, though some members were not present. Thomas, Volker, and Tatiana will need to review by COB Wednesday, 4 March to register concerns with this updated question.
  5. Legal Committee to review the Initial Report and provide suggested recommendations or specific portions of the Report that would be benefit from Bird & Bird’s review by COB Wednesday, 4 March.