<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Dear TF members,<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>Here are the minutes from our fifth call.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>Cheers,<o:p></o:p>Boris <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>Tuesday, 18 July 2023 17:00 (UTC+2)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>Attendees: Farzaneh Badii, Shane Kerr, Andronikos Kyriakou, János Zsakó<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>Scribe: Boris Duval <o:p></o:p> 1. Welcome and AdministriviaShane welcomed all participants and mentioned that he was pleased with the text written by Töma on the pros and cons of running DNS resolution software on bare servers or in the cloud. 2. GDPR Compliance<o:p></o:p>Farzaneh said that she has been looking into the GDPR policy of 10 DNS resolvers based in Europe. She noted that some resolvers have strong policies, while others lack clarity, especially open DNS resolvers. She mentioned that she will be trying to set up interviews with some of those companies to try to better understand their policy as there is limited information available online. <o:p></o:p> Shane agreed with Farzaneh’s approach and mentioned that interviews will be valuable but also time consuming. He also suggested looking outside European resolvers if possible, as it might be interesting to make comparisons. Andronikos shared a link (<a href="https://europeanresolverpolicy.com/" target="_new" style="font-family: "Courier New"; font-size: 10pt;">https://europeanresolverpolicy.com/</a>) that provides guidelines on handling GDPR compliance but noted that it does not apply to major open resolvers. János pointed out that the relationship between the GDPR and IP addresses is tricky, as it will have to be demonstrated that IP addresses are personal data. He also pointed out that the possibility of asking one's data to be deleted (guaranteed under GDPR) would also pose a problem in the case of public resources. <o:p></o:p> Farzaneh said she would try to meet Maarten in August to discuss the GDPR aspects of the text. Farzaneh also asked the task force if they knew of an authoritative list for DNS resolvers. Andronikos shared a list in the chat. 3. IP Blocking / Intellectual PropertyFarzaneh said she had recently met with policymakers and discussed the implications of IP blocking. She also mentioned the recent Quad 9 case, in which the company was sued by Sony and had to block websites as a result. She added that the other part of the issue was to talk about the implications of blocking websites at the DNS level and asking the resolver to do so. <o:p></o:p> Shane suggested that the task force's only recommendation for operators should be to follow the law.<o:p></o:p>Farzaneh proposed the inclusion of recommendations for transparency and third-party audits if DNS resolvers opt for a blocklist.<o:p></o:p> Shane mentioned that Danish ISPs are required to support three blocklists: one governmental, one against child pornography operated by an NGO, and one run by ISPs. He acknowledged that expanding the scope might be necessary if deemed appropriate.<o:p></o:p> János stated that IP-level blocking is more effective than DNS-level blocking in Hungary.<o:p></o:p>Shane suggested the task force consider highlighting the alternative of recommending IP-level blocking, which may be more logical.<o:p></o:p> Andronikos said that he was surprised about the prevalence of IP-level filtering in Hungary, as DNS filtering is more common in the countries his company operate in. He noted the industry's increasing trend towards DNS filtering despite its imperfections. Andronikos recommended against debating the pros and cons of DNS versus IP filtering, as DNS filtering is currently a functional solution, albeit not perfect. <o:p></o:p> 4. Open Source ComplianceFarzaneh proposed providing a definition of open source compliance, with the option to integrate it into the document if agreed upon by the task force. She explained that open source compliance entails offering free resources and best practices instead of paid legal assistance. Implementation plans should also be available through these resources. Farzaneh mentioned the possibility of modifying the terminology if necessary.<o:p></o:p> 5. TimelineThe task force discussed the document submission deadline, agreeing on a submission four weeks before the next RIPE Meeting. <o:p></o:p> 6. New Chat PlatformBoris mentioned that the task force will have to leave Mattermost for another chat platform in two weeks. The RIPE NCC is looking for alternatives and will keep the task force updated. <o:p></o:p></body></html>