Page History
...
RDS PDP - SO AC SG C Input Template - 2 May 2016 rev.pdf
1. Roll Call / SOI
2. Update from sub-teams - overview of final template (sub-team leads)
Thanks to all sub-teams for their work in pulling together inputs and summarizing them
We are now regrouping as a full WG and will start with an update from each team leader on the sub-team outputs
Data Sub-Team Readout:
RDSPurpose-InputsSummaries-1May.pdf
A couple of summaries still pending but will be added in the next couple of days
Quite a lot of information there to help bring WG members up to speed on inputs relevant to RDS requirements related to data elements
Purpose Sub-Team Readout:
RDSData-InputsSummaries-1May.pdf
Excellent support from sub-team members and staff
For those who haven't participated in the discussion of purporse of registration data, the sub-team's output includes summaries of 30-40 documents relevant to the question of purpose
They include A29, 2009 European charter on fundamental data rights, the WHOIS RT 2012 was cited a lot in our work, the EWG recommendations was probably the most controversial, and the SAC055 report was also helpful. If I was new to this, I would review those first but others summarized by the purpose team are also helpful for this question
Comments:
- Purpose is a term of art/legal term in the EU under the EU Data Protection Directive and others, it has been interpretted carefully by the A29 WP in a lengthy opinion. Doc is included in the list and was summarized by Stephanie
- Another member got the impression from the documents reviewed that the purpose definition was quite broad. We should all look at the text before we make judgements about how narrow/specific something is
RDSPrivacy-InputsSummaries-1May.pdf
- Privacy team identified and summarized many documents - a good bit of overlap with the Purpose list but often summaried by different people from different perspectives
- Stephanie is still working on summary of legitmate interests of data controllers w/r/t the new EU data protection regulations
- As additional documents become relevant to our work, they will need to be taken into account
- See Professor Greenleaf's article and summary for information on emerging trends as well as comprehensive list of data protection laws
- Purpose and Privacy overlap - can be helpful to look at purpose through the prism of DP laws
- Chat comments:
data protection regulation will supplant the framework directive, not coexist with it. (Once the regulation comes into force in 2018)
Article 29 WP 76 Opinion 2/2003 is in the summaries and does say "registration of domain names by individuals raises different legal considerations than that of companies or other legal persons registering domain names" ... "the publication of certain information about the company or organisation (such as their identification and their physical address) is often a requirement by law in the framework of the commercial or professional activities they perform"
Should the privacy team should include more documents about limitations of privacy rights? Article 29 WG in 2006 stated that companies do not necessarily have a right to privacy and that imposes an obligation on us to explore that limitation and others
Should the privacy team add some of the legal analysis that was presented to the PPSAI group
<additional chat comments to be included here>
Issue of protection of human rights is not included in the privacy group's summaries
All of these sub-team outputs were created to inform the full WG as it continues its phase 1 work
Question: New RAA includes additional requirements w/r/t data collection, how does this PDP WG's recommendations impact those rquirements
Answer: Registries and registrars have an obligation to follow consensus policies - commit to following them even before we know what they'll be. In this PDP WG"s phase 1 work, the WG will make a recommendation about whether a new RDS is needed or WHOIS can be modified to meet requirements, as well as whether to continue to phases 2-3 to make policy recommendations. Phase 2 will cover policies, phase 3 implementation guidance. This PDP WG will make recommendations for policies, give those to the GNSO council, the GNSO council will decide whether to recommend adoption to the board, only when the board approves the recommended consensus policies do they then get implemented into the registry and registrar agreements. Long process that can change future contractual requirements - new consensus policies would be incorporated into agreements with registries and registrars. Part of the board's motion typically tasks staff with making adjustments to contracts and forming an implementation review team to implement the new policies in as efficient and timely manner as possible. No need for renegotiation of agreements.
3. Review updated mind map (revised)
5 Outreach to SO/ACs/SG/C to request early input (revised)
See RDS PDP - SO AC SG C Input Template - 2 May 2016 rev.pdf
We are at a point now where we an do early outreach to SOs, ACs, GNSO SGs/Cs, and perhaps broader community to gather input to inform the WG
Draft prepared by leadership group for WG review and comment
Highlights of request for input:
- Template (format used for other PDPs) to fill out to respond to specific questions
- Provides WG progress to date and asks for input on completeness of key inputs identified to date. Are there any docs that are missing or that haven't been identified as relevant but should be and why.
- The issue report, comments on issue report, and other past inputs - are those inputs still relevant or does any input need to be updated to reflect that group's input to the WG
- Are there any charter questions that are missing and should be taken into account by the WG?
- Any other input not noted above
- PDP process requires min 35 days, WG can extend if more time needed but idea is to have input ASAP
Critical that each WG member reach out to their own group and serve as facilitator to solicit early inputs
Action item: Staff to distribute to full WG with until Sunday UTC for review/comment and agreement to go ahead a distribute to SOs/ACs/SGs/Cs.
WG members should feel free to suggest edits to make sure this is an effective outreach to solicity early input.
Questions: Response time (35 days min but some groups may require longer), who to include in broader community (eg DPAs?)
6. Helsinki meeting planning
Currently in latest drat schedule, there is a carve out for a whole morning for this PDP WG to meet. However, there is also a possibility that this topic will identified for 75m cross-community discussion.
As soon as schedule is confirmed, the WG will need to consider how to organize its time to best make use of it - particularly if cross-community session is scheduled, the WG may need to prepare tutorial or other presentation or questions to make that session effective
Note that we will have a regular WG meeting (both remote and in-person participation options) whether or not this topic is identified for a cross-community session
Our Helsinki WG session will be open to anyone - not just WG members - so that everyone can participate
Concern that there will likely be conflicts between sessions that impact those who participate in multiple groups. Chuck has raised this concern to the planning committee but some conflicts are inevitable. There aren't as many as a regular ICANN meeting. On GNSO side, there's been an effort to avoid as much as possible conflicts between GNSO communities. However, there are also conflicts between SOs, ACs that may still be examined to adjust and reduce conflicts. There wil be some growing pains since this is the first "B" meeting with this new schedule to facilitate policy development. What is the mechanism to make conflicts known?
Action item: Staff to carry forward this feedback on conflict minimization - if GNSO would firm up its sessions, SOs/ACs could adjust accordingly - and will provide WG with info scheduling for this PDP WG
7. Confirm next steps & next meeting
Tuesday 10 May 2016 at same time (16.00 UTC)
Primary agenda item: work plan, facilitated by mind map description of inputs, questions, and subquestions
Action item: Staff to schedule early leadership team meeting (possibly Wednesday of this week) to finalize draft work plan for distribution to full WG
