Page History
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
Confirmed EPDP-Legal Team members
*During ICANN65, Janis proposed Leon to chair the Phase 2 Legal Committee calls. Leon agreed to serve as the chair, and no EPDP Team Members registered their objection. 2. Review Legal Committee Process and Working Methods a a) Similar to the Phase 1 Legal Committee, if the EPDP Team identifies questions it believes are legal in nature, the Phase 2 Legal Committee will vet the questions to determine:
b b) Meetings of the Phase 2 Legal Committee will be open to all EPDP Team members, but only appointed members will be invited to speak. Appointed members unable to attend meetings may appoint an alternate to speak during the meeting. c c) Ultimate determinations of the Phase 2 Legal Committee will be shared and signed off with the EPDP Team before questions are sent to Bird & Bird. d d) Questions/Concerns? 3. Substantive Review of Priority 1 Legal Questions Submitted to Date a a) The Phase 2 Legal Committee will begin its review of questions submitted for Priority 1 items, i.e., questions submitted for SSAD.
b b) Substantive review of SSAD questions 4. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled a a) Confirm Confirm action items For ease of reference, please find the SSAD questions submitted to date below:
Can legal counsel be consulted to determine if the restated purpose 2 (as stated above) is possible under GDPR? If the above language is not possible, are there suggestions that counsel can make to improve this language? (BC) 9. Can legal analysis be provided on how the balancing test under 6(1)(f) is to be conducted, and under which circumstances 6(1)(f) might require a manual review of a request? (BC) 10. If not all requests benefit from manual review, is there a legal methodology to define categories of requests (e.g. rapid response to a malware attack or contacting a non-responsive IP infringer) which can be structured to reduce the need for manual review? (BC). 11.Can legal counsel be consulted to determine whether GDPR prevents higher volume access for properly credentialed cybersecurity professionals, who have agreed on appropriate safeguards? If such access is not prohibited, can counsel provide examples of safeguards (such as pseudonymization) that should be considered? (BC) 12. To identify 6(1)(b) as purpose for processing registration data, we should follow up on the B & B advice that- “it will be necessary to require that the specific third party or at least the processing by the third party is, at least abstractly, already known to the data subject at the time the contract is concluded and that the controller, as the contractual partner, informs the data subject of this prior to the transfer to the third party” B&B should clarify why it believes that the only basis for providing WHOIS is for the prevention of DNS abuse. Its conclusion in Paragraph 10 does not consider the other purposes identified by the EPDP in Rec 1, and, in any event should consider the recent EC recognition that ICANN has a broad purpose to: ‘contribute to the maintenance of the security, stability, and resiliency of the Domain Name System in accordance with ICANN's mission’, which is at the core of the role of ICANN as the “guardian” of the Domain Name System.” 13. B&B should advise on the extent to which GDPR’s public interest basis 6(1)e is applicable, in light of the EC’s recognition that: “With regard to the formulation of purpose two, the European Commission acknowledges ICANN’s central role and responsibility for ensuring the security, stability and resilience of the Internet Domain Name System and that in doing so it acts in the public interest.” BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Audio Recording Zoom Recording Chat Transcript |
...