February 2019 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
by Drazek, Keith 14 Feb '19

14 Feb '19

FYI, my further exchange with Margie. Regards, Keith From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 3:25 PM To: 'margiemilam(a)fb.com' <margiemilam(a)fb.com> Cc: 'Marksv(a)microsoft.com' <Marksv(a)microsoft.com>; 'sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; 'kurt(a)kjpritz.com' <kurt(a)kjpritz.com>; 'marika.konings(a)icann.org' <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com; 'marie.pattullo(a)aim.be' <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be>; 'smccormick(a)hackerone.com' <smccormick(a)hackerone.com> Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval Hi Margie, Thanks for your follow-up note, and for the opportunity to discuss your views during our phone call yesterday. I’ve provided some initial responses below. Please note I have not had a chance to discuss this with the GNSO Council Leadership Team, EPDP Leadership Team, or ICANN Staff supporting both groups, but I wanted to get this preliminary response back to you prior to this afternoon’s special GNSO Council meeting. 1. I agree the “gating questions” were at least partially “addressed” in the Initial Report, but my understanding is there was no consensus call on the substance or content of the Initial Report, and no consensus on the proposed answers to the gating questions. Rather, there was simply agreement to publish the Initial Report for public comment, and at that time the answers to the gating questions were far from complete or agreed-to by the EPDP WG. As such, the GNSO Council was not asked to consider them and to communicate non-objection to transitioning to Phase 2 as required by the Charter. 2. In relation to Phase 2, you noted below that the EPDP WG Charter says “Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report.“ But you omitted the following sentence that states “The threshold for establishing “answered” for the gating questions shall be consensus of the EPDP Team and non-objection by the GNSO Council.” As noted above, the gating questions still have not been agreed-to by the EPDP WG, but that should currently be taking place with the ongoing consensus assessment process. 3. Further, if you refer to the “Deliverables and Timeline” section on Page 10 of the Charter, there are three distinct deliverables, which clearly include two separate Final Reports of the PDP. The GNSO Council clearly recognized in the Charter that two Final Reports would be needed, one to address the Temp Spec, and a second to address the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data. Here’s an excerpt of the relevant section that lists the deliverables: a. “The first deliverable of the EPDP Team shall be a triage document of the Temporary Specification” b. “The second deliverable shall be the Initial Report which will include the items that received Full Consensus support per the triage document as well as all other items of the Temporary Specification (not including the Annex) that were considered and deliberated upon, followed by a Final Report following review of public comments.” c. “The third deliverable of the EPDP Team shall be an Initial Report outlining a proposed model of a system for providing accredited access to non-public Registration Data, followed by a Final Report following review of public comments.” 4. It was always the intention of the Council that the Phase 1 Final Report would either confirm the Temp Spec as Consensus Policy or replace the Temp Spec with a new Consensus Policy. As such, we are not changing the interpretation of the Charter mid-stream. We had hoped that the Initial Report would have presented a consensus agreement on the gating questions, but it did not, and we are now attempting to do so with the Final Report. 5. On timing, the Consensus Policy must be approved by the Board prior to May 25, 2019. The Phase 1 Final Report needs to be finalized by the EPDP WG in the next two weeks so the Council can vote on 4 March (at the latest) in order to provide time for a traditional 40-day public comment period, Staff analysis of the comments received, and Board consideration and vote before May 25, 2019. There is no time left for a so-called “Phase 1 Part 2 Final Report” and consideration of such a construct was not included in the Charter. 6. In response to your points on the completeness of the Phase 1 Final Report, it is my understanding that the EPDP WG agreed to defer some questions and issues to Phase 2, which in my view is the prerogative of the EPDP WG in conducting its work. That said, here are my observations: a. Purposes – I defer comment on this until after I’ve had a chance to discuss with the EPDP WG leadership team. b. Data Accuracy – Data accuracy requirements were not included in the EPDP WG Charter. c. Geographic Requirements – The Final Report includes a recommendation, so this appears to be addressed. d. Natural/Legal Persons – The Final Report includes a recommendation and says that ICANN should study the issue further, so this appears addressed. e. Other Consensus Policies – The Final Report includes a recommendation acknowledging that other Consensus Policies be updated as part of the implementation of the new Consensus Policy. It appears more work can be done here, but these were not gating questions and therefore can be addressed in Phase 2 and/or the implementation of Phase 1. 7. Finally, to reiterate a point from my earlier email, the GNSO Council is looking forward to approving the Phase 1 Final Report AND signaling non-objection to the EPDP WG transitioning to Phase 2 during our GNSO Council meetings on 21 February or 4 March. I encourage everyone to continue providing input and feedback to the EPDP WG as the quiet period comes to a close so any remaining adjustments might be considered and incorporated. Please let me know if you have any follow up questions. Best, Keith Drazek GNSO Chair P.s. Please forward this to the EPDP WG list as I do not have posting privileges. From: Margie Milam <margiemilam(a)fb.com<mailto:margiemilam@fb.com>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:36 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: MarksvATmicrosoft.com <Marksv(a)microsoft.com<mailto:Marksv@microsoft.com>>; sdelbiancoATnetchoice.org <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; 'kurt(a)kjpritz.com' <kurt(a)kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>>; marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>; Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; Scott McCormick <smccormick(a)hackerone.com<mailto:smccormick@hackerone.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval Importance: High Hi Keith- Thank you for talking to us about the GNSO Council’s upcoming vote on the EPDP “Final Report.” We owed you additional pieces of information that help explain our view on how the charter is interpreted. * Gating Questions It appears the gating questions were addressed in the Initial report. You’ll recall not all questions in the charter were termed “gating” – only Part 1(a) and Part 2(b), (c) and (f). · Part 1(a) (Purposes for Processing Registration Data) is addressed by Initial Report Recommendation 1 · Part 2(b) (Collection of registration data by registrar) is addressed by Initial Report Recommendation 4 · Part 2(c) (Transfer of data from registrar to registry) is addressed by Initial Report Recommendation 5 · Part 2(f) (Publication of data by registrar/registry) is addressed by Initial Report Recommendations 8 and 10 As I explained, nowhere in the Charter or elsewhere does it call for a consensus decision of the Final Report in order to move ahead with Phase 2. Instead the Charter states: “Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. “ Since there was consensus to publish the Initial Report, the Council should have simply notified the EPDP Team in November that it had no objection to proceeding to Phase 2. Indeed, this reference to the Initial Report confirms that there was no intent to wait until consensus for the Final Report. In our view, it is problematic to change the interpretation of the Charter midstream during the EPDP’s deliberations for those stakeholder groups and constituencies that relied on this interpretation of the Charter. * Completeness of Phase 1 Report Per our discussion, Phase 1 was not fully completed; there are questions that should have been answered in Phase 1 but were recommended in the Phase 1 Final Report to be delayed into Phase 2 for consideration and work. This non-exhaustive list includes (referenced by charter section): · Charter section: None Recommendation 2: The EPDP team considers whether additional purposes should be considered to facilitate work by ICANN Org’s OCTO. · Charter section: P.7: System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data Recommendation 3: Questions about a standardized access model (e.g., whether such a system should be adopted, what are legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data, etc.) · Charter section: Part 2(g), P.5: Data retention Recommendation 15: Undertake a review of all ICANN Org active processes to document instances when personal data is requested from a registrar beyond the period of the “life of the registration.” · Charter section: Part 2(h)(3-5), P.5: Legal vs. Natural Persons Recommendation 17: The EPDP Team will discuss the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2. · Charter section: P.7: System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Reg. Data Recommendation 18: Replacement of Secs. 4.1 and 4.2 of Appendix A to the Temp Spec by criteria enumerated by the EPDP team. * Further examples of issues NOT yet addressed in Phase 1 · Charter section: Part 4 (n-q), P.7: Updates to other consensus polices o URS o UDRP o Transfer policy o Sunsetting Whois (following migration to RDAP) * Need for a Final Report Part II As previously discussed and highlighted above, the (actual) Final Report is incomplete and cannot form the basis of a consensus policy until the charter’s work is complete. One needs to look no further than the Board resolution in support of this, including elucidation of the appropriate timeline: As required when a temporary policy or specification is adopted, the Board also is taking action to implement the consensus policy development process. The Board will consult with the GNSO Council on potential paths forward (e.g. Expedited Policy Development Process) for considering the development of a consensus policy on the issues within the Temporary Specification, which must be concluded in a one-year time period. The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the “gating questions” (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see EPDP initial report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…>). Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year. Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team’s work. What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual “final” report - – which must occur prior to the expiration of the Temp Spec on May 25, 2019. We hope this helps clarify our thoughts as the Council considers these procedural issues in its call later today. We’d like to encourage the Council to ask the EDPD Leadership to create a timeline for producing the Final Report -Part II that brings the work to a close in an expedited manner. All the best, Margie From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM To: "marie.pattullo(a)aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>" <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "MarksvATmicrosoft.com" <Marksv(a)microsoft.com<mailto:Marksv@microsoft.com>>, "sdelbiancoATnetchoice.org" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Margie Milam <margiemilam(a)fb.com<mailto:margiemilam@fb.com>>, "'kurt(a)kjpritz.com'" <kurt(a)kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>>, "marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>" <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>" <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval Hi all, Thanks for forwarding this note from the BC’s EPDP WG reps. I’ll be happy to provide some additional context and guidance, both for Councilors and for the members of the EPDP WG. I’m copying Kurt, Rafik and Marika, so this can be forwarded to the EPDP WG list. 1. During the EPDP WG Chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team made clear there would need to be two distinct phases of the work of the EPDP, each with its own Initial Report and Final Report. Phase One would focus on the Temporary Specification with an imposed 12-month deadline of May 25, 2019 due to the Board’s decision to invoke the Temp Spec. Phase Two would focus on the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data after the gating questions from Phase One were addressed and the GNSO Council agreed. Here is the Charter language specifying the Objectives and timing: “To develop, at a minimum, an Initial Report and a Final Report regarding the EPDP Team’s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data as well as regarding the EPDP Team’s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data, pursuant to the processes described in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO Expedited PDP Manual. Work on recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data should not commence until all gating questions have been answered. Similarly, delivery of the Final Report on the EPDP Team’s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data to the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board (before 25 May 2019) should not be held up by work that may still be ongoing in relation to the EPDP Team’s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data.” 2. The Phase One Initial Report was delivered on 21 November and public comments were received, analyzed and incorporated. During the chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team agreed, after much negotiation, to consider initiating the Phase Two work after the publication of the Phase One Initial Report, rather than after the Phase One Final Report, with the hope/expectation that the gating questions would have been sufficiently answered and the foundation for Phase Two would have been established. Unfortunately, as we all know, the Phase One Initial Report was not sufficiently complete, the gating questions were not yet addressed, and much more work was required before Phase Two could begin. Fortunately, with the current Phase One Final Report nearly complete, the EPDP will be able to begin work on Phase Two in short order. 3. As everyone should have seen in my email to the Council list last night (responding to Rafik’s note submitting the draft Final Report and Council Motion), our proposed motion will approve the Phase One Final Report and Consensus Policy recommendations AND signal the Council’s agreement (through non-objection) that the Phase Two work can begin. This is a significant moment where the EPDP WG is recommending a Consensus Policy replacement to the Temp Spec to be confirmed by Council and ICANN Board, it has substantially answered the gating questions, and it also agreed to defer certain issues to Phase Two. This is the definition of bottom-up consensus policy-making, and the GNSO Council looks forward to approving the Phase One Final Report, delivering it to the Board, and to supporting the EPDP WG in its Phase Two work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, or Uniform Access Model. To summarize: * The EPDP WG was chartered to have two distinct phases, one on the Temp Spec, the other on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data and the Annex to the Temporary Specification (Important Issues for Further Community Action). * The current report is the Final Report from Phase One. * The GNSO Council is expected to approve the Phase One Final Report replacing the Temp Spec AND authorize the EPDP WG to move to Phase Two. * Following GNSO PDP operating procedures and the ICANN bylaws, the EPDP WG recommendations to replace the Temp Spec will need to be approved by GNSO Council and the ICANN Board to ensure they are Consensus Policies and enforceable by ICANN Org. * The EPDP Charter is clear that the work on the System for Standardized Access is the next critical phase and it will receive the full support of the GNSO Council and ICANN Org. * Without Council approval of the Phase One Final Report, and without a new Consensus Policy to replace the Temp Spec before May 25, 2019, there will be no work on Phase Two. I hope this helps provide clarity around the views and intent of the GNSO Council as we initiated this important work and our expectations for the coming weeks. I appreciate the opportunity to review and reflect on the Charter and the work of the EPDP and I’m impressed by the group’s output in a very compressed timeframe. Please let me know if anyone has follow up questions. Otherwise, we’ll look forward to considering the EPDP WG Phase One Final Report during our 21 February and/or 4 March GNSO Council meetings. Regards, Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 12:36 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Mark Svancarek (CELA) <marksv(a)microsoft.com<mailto:marksv@microsoft.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; Margie Milam <margiemilam(a)fb.com<mailto:margiemilam@fb.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval Importance: High Dear all, I’ve been asked to send the below message to you from Margie, on behalf of the BC’s EPDP participants. I’m copying them here for ease. We’d appreciate your thoughts. Thanks Marie Hi – Thank you for sharing this note. I am genuinely confused about the directions given to the GNSO Council since this report – although it is misnamed a “Final Report” is really only an “Phase 1 Interim Report” since the PDP has not concluded, and the charter questions have not been answered. As a result, is seems that the voting thresholds to create a consensus policy and the vote required under the Bylaws do not yet apply until the Phase 2 work is complete. I understand the desire to call this a Final Report, but there is a significant amount of work that has not been done yet, as outlined in the draft report being circulated, with key areas missing, such as: …the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. (p.3, Mission and Scope, emphasis added) This passage sets forth the minimum requirements necessary for successful completion of the EPDP. However, one set of questions (see p.7 of the charter) -- dealing with access to non-public registration data -- is entirely unaddressed by the EPDP team. Further, according to the charter: System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. (p.7, emphasis added) The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the “gating questions” (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see EPDP initial report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…>). Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year. Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team’s work. What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual “final” report (not merely a report on the conclusion of Phase 1), inclusive of Phases 1 and 2. Additionally, Section 2(j) of the charter addresses “Reasonable Access.” In what is labeled the draft final report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>, the charter’s section 2(j) questions are only partially answered, and included is a recommendation that the rest of the details be worked out in the implementation phase. Again, the EPDP team’s work is not yet finished, and it is premature to consider the current “consensus calls” instructive since this is an incomplete report, and true consensus can only truly be determined when the entire package (Phase 1 and Phase 2) of recommendations is developed. As a result, the report should be renamed, and the Council’s instructions should be updated accordingly. All the best, Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:43 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval hi all, Please find below the email sent to GNSO council to submit the motion for council consideration to approve the final report. You can find the latest version of the report posted in word and redline version on the wiki space https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: mar. 12 févr. 2019 à 08:10 Subject: Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Hi all, I am glad to submit today the motion for the approval of EPDP Final Report Please find attached the motion and the draft final report. That version of the report is being currently reviewed by EPDP team members during this week - "quiet time". You will find below a cover letter from the EPDP leadership team giving more details in that regard. The motion may need to be amended in due time to be in line with the level of support for the recommendations in the Final Report. Best Regards, Rafik Dammak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Councillors: We are pleased to present this Draft Final EPDP Report Final Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. The purpose in sending this draft Final Report is so that you can become acquainted with its layout and contents in advance of the release of the Final Report, expected on 20 February. It is hoped that this early release will facilitate your review of the final document. The EPDP Team is grateful to have two additional weeks for its deliberations.We are using the first week as a sort of “quiet period” to review the draft Final Report and have scheduled meetings for next week to reach conclusions on open issues. So we expect so substantive and non-substantive amendments to the report. With regard to the level of consensus, the report indicates those items where: • The Chair has indicated a consensus level and the EPDP Team has had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation • The Chair has indicated a level of Consensus and the EPDP Team has not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation • The Chair has not made a designation yet because the issue is still open for some discussion. In many (nearly all) of the open recommendations, we are very close to final language but we have attempted to be conservative in the consensus designation and so have left some of these recommendations with no designation as of yet. The language you are reading in this report is close to final. Sections that still remain open are designated with brackets. The next steps for those sections are highlighted in yellow. We will also conduct a final Consensus call on the entire document when the report is final to identify any issues raised by the interplay between the Recommendations. Finally, and there will be more about this when the final report is delivered, this work product represents a significant sacrifice in time and effort by the working group members and, more significantly, a willingness by them to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise for our common goals. Best regards, EPDP Leadership Team

1 0

Document and Motion deadline Friday 22 February 2019 at 23:59 UTC for the Placeholder GNSO Council Meeting 4 March 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 14 Feb '19

14 Feb '19

Dear all, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. Friday 22 February 2019 at 23:59 UTC) of the Placeholder GNSO Council Meeting on Monday 4 March 2019 at 21:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a councilor and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/Wog2Bg Thank you very much. With kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Call tomorrow
by Erika Mann 13 Feb '19

13 Feb '19

All - Apologies but I will not be able to join the call tomorrow. Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone

1 0

FW: [Communication] Contracted Parties Briefing for ICANN64
by Marika Konings 13 Feb '19

13 Feb '19

For your information [cid:image001.png@01D4C20C.B15AA1D0] 11 February 2019 Greetings, The ICANN Global Domains Division (GDD) team would like to highlight some recent community-impacting activities and projects below. We are preparing for the ICANN64 Community Forum<https://meetings.icann.org/en/kobe64> in Kobe, Japan, and look forward to your participation. If attending in person, please register<https://registration.icann.org/register.php?id=kobe64>. Also, note that remote participation will be available. New & Noteworthy Meet with us at ICANN64 Kobe If you plan to attend ICANN64 and want to schedule an in-person meeting with your GDD engagement manager or other members of the ICANN organization, please submit your request to globalsupport(a)icann.org<mailto:globalsupport@icann.org> no later than Friday, 1 March 2019 with the following information: • Your name and title* • Company affiliation(s)* • Names, email addresses and phone numbers of other attendees* • A brief description of the topic(s) you wish to address • Requested ICANN org attendees • Your date and time preference(s) (9–14 March between 9:00–17:30 local time) We will do our best to accommodate requests and ensure that relevant ICANN org staff join the meeting. The full meeting schedule will be available on 18 Feb 2019. * Note: By submitting your personal data, you agree that your personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>, and agree to abide by the Terms of Service<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>. One-on-One Meetings with Contractual Compliance at ICANN64 Members of the Contractual Compliance team will be available for a limited number of one-on-one sessions with contracted parties. Requests can be made to compliance(a)icann.org. 2019 Contracted Party Satisfaction Survey An invitation to participate in the third annual 2019 Contracted Party Satisfaction Survey will be sent to contracted parties in mid-February, and the survey will be available for 30 days. Please take advantage of the opportunity to provide GDD valuable information about how we can serve you better. IDN Guidelines version 4.0 Implementation ICANN org announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-10-en> the release of the Final Proposed Draft version 4.0<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf> of the Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Implementation Guidelines on 10 May 2018. GDD is working on the implementation plan in anticipation of its adoption by the Board. A summary of the proposed implementation plan will be presented at ICANN64 at the IDN Program update session. Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data On 27 January 2019, the ICANN Board of Directors reaffirmed the Temporary Specification<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en> for gTLD Registration Data for an additional 90-day period beginning 19 February 2019. This Temporary Specification was initially adopted by Board resolution<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-05-17-en> on 17 May 2018 and re-affirmed 21 August 2018 and 6 November 2018 for 90-day periods, pursuant to procedures outlined for establishing temporary policies in ICANN's agreements with registry operators and registrars. The Temporary Specification became effective on 25 May 2018 and may be reaffirmed for successive 90-day periods by the ICANN Board for a total period not to exceed one year from the effective date. 2019 GDD Industry Summit The 2019 GDD Industry Summit<https://www.icann.org/gddsummit> will take place 6-9 May in Bangkok, Thailand. The GDD Industry Summit provides contracted parties with an opportunity to network and discuss operational issues, best practices, lessons learned, and emerging and ongoing challenges with industry and GDD colleagues. Information on hotel rates, registration, visas, and sponsorship can be found here<https://www.icann.org/gddsummit>. The following industry events will be held at the same venue 9-12 May: Registration Operations Workshop (ROW)<http://regiops.net/>, ICANN DNS Symposium<https://www.icann.org/ids>, and OARC 30<https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/31/>.   Keep Your Contact Information Current in ICANN Systems Please take a moment now to confirm your contacts are up to date in ICANN’s systems to ensure you don’t miss an important communication. Registrars can review their details in RADAR<https://radar.icann.org/>; instructions for adjusting registrar information are here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrar-contact-updates-2015-09-22-…>. Registry operators should log into the Naming Services portal<https://icann-nsp.okta.com/app/salesforce/exk2gjldmqaPjSW382p6/sso/saml> to submit updates to any contacts that are not current. Information for Registrants ICANN org has recently published educational material<https://www.icann.org/registrants> for registrants on domain name renewals and expiration. This includes an infographic<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/renew-domain-name-before-expire…> about the importance of renewing domain names and what happens to domain names if they are not renewed in a timely fashion. Please feel free to distribute or reference these materials for your customers as you find helpful. At ICANN64, we will share recent registrant concerns and provide the community an update on related work. ICANN org encourages all contracted parties to join the session and share their thoughts and ideas about how we can better raise awareness of registrant issues and challenges with the broader community. First Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) System Report Published DAAR was created in response to community requests for neutral, reliable, persistent, and reproducible data from which security threat and abuse analyses could be performed. The DAAR system is based on a published and community-vetted methodology for studying and reporting domain name registration and security threat behavior across top-level domain (TLD) registries and registrars. The first report, accompanied by an explanation of the methodology behind the DAAR system, is available here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-02-01-en>. Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) The RDAP pilot discussion group and the ICANN org are continuing discussions on RDAP implementation. ICANN org continues to work with the contracted parties to reach agreement on proposals for gTLD RDAP service level agreements (SLA) and registry reporting requirements. While RDAP delivers registration data similar to WHOIS, its implementation is expected to help standardize registration data access and query response formats. As a reminder, the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data requires gTLD registry operators and registrars to implement an RDAP service within a 135-day period after notification from ICANN. All registry operators and registrars should begin preparing now. Learn more about this protocol here<https://www.icann.org/rdap>. Policy Implementation Updates IGO and INGO Identifiers Protection Policy  On 27 January 2019, the Board adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-01-27-en#2.d> policy recommendations on Protections for Certain Red Cross and Red Crescent Names in All Generic Top-Level Domains and directed their implementation. This Consensus Policy will supplement the previously-adopted Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/igo-ingo-protection-policy-2018-01-16…> by which the specific terms Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Lion & Sun and Red Crystal were withheld from registration. The Implementation Review Team (IRT) that is working on the implementation of the previously-adopted consensus policy plans will add these new recommendations to its scope. Please see IGO and INGO Policy IRT wiki page<https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/IGO+and+INGO+Identifiers+Protect…> for details. Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program ICANN org will implement the Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program at a pace that accounts for the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Team’s work on an access model for non-public generic top-level domain (gTLD) registration data. The EPDP Team is nearing completion of the first phase of its work. It is expected that EPDP Phase 2, during which the team will consider the possibility of developing an access model for non-public gTLD registration data, will begin shortly after submission of the EPDP Team’s Final Report to the GNSO Council. More information about the EPDP Team’s work is available on the Team’s wiki page<https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD>. The EPDP Team has not developed a timeline for its Phase 2 work. More information about the implementation review team (IRT) on privacy and proxy service provider accreditation is available on the ICANN.org implementation status page<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ppsai-2016-08-18-en>. Registrars Reminder on 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Auto Renewal Process ICANN would like to remind registrars that are nearing the end of the RAA five-year term that the renewal process has several requirements detailed here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/renewing-2013-07-08-en>. ICANN will contact you 90 days before the expiration to request confirmation of the intent to renew and remind you of requirements. Prompt action is required to ensure the renewal process completes before expiration. Registrar Data Escrow Reporting In late 2018, ICANN org launched a new optional Registrar Data Escrow reporting service in the Registration Reporting Interfaces (RRI) system. Registrars who choose to use the service will have real-time access to monitor their data escrow reporting status based on the notifications sent to ICANN by participating data escrow agents. ICANN org will send more information about how registrars can opt into this service in future communications. Registries Centralized Zone Data System Experience Refreshed The registry operator functionality of the Centralized Zone Data System (CZDS) was recently integrated into the Naming Services portal. By default, all users with access to the Naming Services portal now have access to CZDS by enabling it at the top corner of the portal. To add additional users to CZDS, registry operators should submit a request to the Global Support Center at globalsupport(a)icann.org<mailto:globalsupport@icann.org> with the list of users that require access to CZDS. Monitoring System API (MoSAPI) This month, ICANN will launch a new version of the Monitoring System API (MoSAPI) that extends the result codes available to registries. The new result codes allow registries to better troubleshoot the issues detected by ICANN's SLA Monitoring System (SLAM). The latest version of the MoSAPI specification is available here<https://www.icann.org/mosapi-specification.pdf>. Becoming UA-Ready is Good for Business Universal Acceptance (UA) of domain names and email addresses is the key to unlocking the potential of new generic top-level domains to foster competition, consumer choice, and innovation in the domain name industry. According to an independent study, UA represents a multi-billion dollar business opportunity in online services through a routine update to Internet systems. Test your email<https://uasg.tech/eai-check/> to see if your systems accept internationalized email addresses or contact<https://uasg.tech/contact/> the Universal Acceptance Steering Group to learn more. We hope this information provides you with additional insight and transparency into our ongoing activities and look forward to your feedback. Best Regards, Cyrus Namazi Vice President, Global Domains Division

1 0

FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
by Marie Pattullo 13 Feb '19

13 Feb '19

Dear all, I’ve been asked to send the below message to you from Margie, on behalf of the BC’s EPDP participants. I’m copying them here for ease. We’d appreciate your thoughts. Thanks Marie Hi – Thank you for sharing this note. I am genuinely confused about the directions given to the GNSO Council since this report – although it is misnamed a “Final Report” is really only an “Phase 1 Interim Report” since the PDP has not concluded, and the charter questions have not been answered. As a result, is seems that the voting thresholds to create a consensus policy and the vote required under the Bylaws do not yet apply until the Phase 2 work is complete. I understand the desire to call this a Final Report, but there is a significant amount of work that has not been done yet, as outlined in the draft report being circulated, with key areas missing, such as: …the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. (p.3, Mission and Scope, emphasis added) This passage sets forth the minimum requirements necessary for successful completion of the EPDP. However, one set of questions (see p.7 of the charter) -- dealing with access to non-public registration data -- is entirely unaddressed by the EPDP team. Further, according to the charter: System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. (p.7, emphasis added) The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the “gating questions” (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see EPDP initial report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…>). Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year. Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team’s work. What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual “final” report (not merely a report on the conclusion of Phase 1), inclusive of Phases 1 and 2. Additionally, Section 2(j) of the charter addresses “Reasonable Access.” In what is labeled the draft final report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>, the charter’s section 2(j) questions are only partially answered, and included is a recommendation that the rest of the details be worked out in the implementation phase. Again, the EPDP team’s work is not yet finished, and it is premature to consider the current “consensus calls” instructive since this is an incomplete report, and true consensus can only truly be determined when the entire package (Phase 1 and Phase 2) of recommendations is developed. As a result, the report should be renamed, and the Council’s instructions should be updated accordingly. All the best, Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:43 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval hi all, Please find below the email sent to GNSO council to submit the motion for council consideration to approve the final report. You can find the latest version of the report posted in word and redline version on the wiki space https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: mar. 12 févr. 2019 à 08:10 Subject: Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Hi all, I am glad to submit today the motion for the approval of EPDP Final Report Please find attached the motion and the draft final report. That version of the report is being currently reviewed by EPDP team members during this week - "quiet time". You will find below a cover letter from the EPDP leadership team giving more details in that regard. The motion may need to be amended in due time to be in line with the level of support for the recommendations in the Final Report. Best Regards, Rafik Dammak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Councillors: We are pleased to present this Draft Final EPDP Report Final Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. The purpose in sending this draft Final Report is so that you can become acquainted with its layout and contents in advance of the release of the Final Report, expected on 20 February. It is hoped that this early release will facilitate your review of the final document. The EPDP Team is grateful to have two additional weeks for its deliberations.We are using the first week as a sort of “quiet period” to review the draft Final Report and have scheduled meetings for next week to reach conclusions on open issues. So we expect so substantive and non-substantive amendments to the report. With regard to the level of consensus, the report indicates those items where: · The Chair has indicated a consensus level and the EPDP Team has had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation · The Chair has indicated a level of Consensus and the EPDP Team has not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation · The Chair has not made a designation yet because the issue is still open for some discussion. In many (nearly all) of the open recommendations, we are very close to final language but we have attempted to be conservative in the consensus designation and so have left some of these recommendations with no designation as of yet. The language you are reading in this report is close to final. Sections that still remain open are designated with brackets. The next steps for those sections are highlighted in yellow. We will also conduct a final Consensus call on the entire document when the report is final to identify any issues raised by the interplay between the Recommendations. Finally, and there will be more about this when the final report is delivered, this work product represents a significant sacrifice in time and effort by the working group members and, more significantly, a willingness by them to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise for our common goals. Best regards, EPDP Leadership Team

4 4

Update from TSG-RD
by Marika Konings 12 Feb '19

12 Feb '19

For your information, you can find here an update on the progress made by the Technical Study Group on Access to Non-Public Registration Data (TSG-RD) during its first F2F meeting: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/technical-study-group-makes-progress-at-fir… Best regards, Marika

3 5

Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meeting - 21 February 2019 at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 12 Feb '19

12 Feb '19

Dear all, Please below find the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 21 February 2019 at 12:00 UTC. Final GNSO Council Agenda 21 February 2019 Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:https://community.icann.org/x/JIoWBg<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+21+Februa…> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018 For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/yycxjkmn 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 17:00 Islamabad; 21:00 Tokyo; 23:00 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________ Item 1: Administrative Matters (5 mins) 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-24jan19-en.pdf> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 24 January 2019 were posted on the 7 February 2019 Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 14th February will be posted on XXXXXXXX Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3: Consent Agenda (0 minutes) * None Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the Final Report on Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (40 minutes) On 11 May 2018, ICANN released the Temporary Specification<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#con…> on gTLD Registration Data, which served as the main agenda topic for the subsequent Board Workshop in Vancouver. This proposed Temporary Specification provides an interim solution until the community completes a policy development process on the temporary specification which is expected to complete within a one year period. On 17 May 2017, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-05-17-en> the proposed Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en>, which establishes temporary requirements for how ICANN and its Contracted Parties will comply with both ICANN contractual requirements and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). On 12 June 2018, the Council held an Extraordinary Council Meeting to discuss next steps on addressing the Temporary Specification. There, the Council agreed in principle that an EPDP was the right way to address the issue and took steps to draft the charter and prepare for EPDP initiation. On 19 July 2018, the Council voted to initiate an EPDP on the Temporary Specification<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec…>, as well as to adopt the EPDP’s charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec…>. The EPDP Team held its first meeting on 1 August 2018 and on 21 November 2018, the EPDP published its Initial Report for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-ini…>. After taking into account public comment received, the EPDP Team has worked to deliver its Final Report <https://community.icann.org/x/u4E2Bg> to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Due to the unique circumstances concerning the deadline for implementation, and in order to minimize the transition period, the EPDP Leadership and Team informally recommends that discussion around implementation deliverables be initiated immediately. This preliminary work will inform the deliberations of the formal Implementation Recommendation Team upon Board approval of the Policy Recommendations. Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Final Report of the EPDP Team. 4.1 - Presentation of motion (Rafik Dammak) 4.2 - Council discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: Supermajority) Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws as the GNSO ‘shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws’ (Art.11.1). Furthermore, this action complies with the requirements set out in Annex A: GNSO Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws. Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data - Phase 2 Work (15 minutes) As noted in the charter<https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/EPDP+Team+Charter> for the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data can only commence after the work on a series of gating questions are complete. With the EPDP Team’s delivery of its Final Report to the GNSO Council, the work on the gating questions can be considered to be completed and the work on the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, or otherwise known as phase 2 of the EPDP, should be allowed to commence. However, per the EPDP Team Charter, beginning that work is dependent upon non-objection of the GNSO Council (which is captured and granted in the resolution language for item 4 of this agenda). As part of the resolved clause, “...The Council does request that the EPDP Team, as a first step, develops its work plan for phase 2 and, furthermore, identifies whether the GNSO Council should consider any updates to the EPDP Team Charter to facilitate the EPDP Team’s work.” The Council recognizes that suggestions to update the structure of the EPDP Team and any changes to the Charter are best delivered by the EPDP Team. However, the Council believes that it is constructive to have a preliminary discussion on the subject to see if there are any areas that Councilors believe will require revision for phase 2. Here, the Council will have preliminary discussions on possible changes needed for phase 2 of the EPDP. 5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Next steps Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE – Status of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG (20 minutes) On 17 December 2015, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate the PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which was tasked to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures and Applicant Guidebook to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations are needed. The Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-charter-21…> was subsequently adopted on 12 January 2016 and the WG began meeting in February of that year. Given the broad scope of the topics captured in the WG’s Charter, the WG established four sub teams to help streamline its work. The WG published an Initial Report<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-20…> on those subjects in July of 2018. The WG also considered several topics that it believed did not undergo adequate deliberations and in October of 2018 published a Supplemental Initial Report<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-supp-i…> on those additional subjects. In addition, the WG convened Work Track 5, which is dedicated to the singular topic of geographic names at the top-level. WT5 published its Supplemental Initial Report in December of 2018. The WG is in the midst of considering the extensive public comment received to its three reports and will begin substantive discussions shortly. The WG hopes to be able to conclude all aspects of its work and deliver a single Final Report to the GNSO Council. Here, the Council will receive a detailed update from the WG’s Co-Chairs, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr. 6.1 – Presentation of topic (WG Co-Chairs, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (15 minutes) 7.1 - ICANN64 Planning 7.2 - Lessons learned from the Council public comment formulation for the ICANN Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update and the ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 7.3 - Public Comment: First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/two-year-planning-2018-12-21-en> ________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i)) See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11. Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4) See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced… References for Coordinated Universal Time of 12:00 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8 04:00 San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 09:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2 10:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0 12:00 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 13:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1 13:00 Islamabad, Pakistan (PKT) (+1 day) UTC+5 17:00 Singapore (SGT) (+1 day) UTC+8 20:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST) (+1 day) UTC+9 21:00 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) (+1 day) UTC+11 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on Sunday 31 of March 2019, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 10 of March 2018 for the US. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> and https://tinyurl.com/yycxjkmn

1 0

Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
by Rafik Dammak 11 Feb '19

11 Feb '19

Hi all, I am glad to submit today the motion for the approval of EPDP Final Report Please find attached the motion and the draft final report. That version of the report is being currently reviewed by EPDP team members during this week - "quiet time". You will find below a cover letter from the EPDP leadership team giving more details in that regard. The motion may need to be amended in due time to be in line with the level of support for the recommendations in the Final Report. Best Regards, Rafik Dammak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Councillors: We are pleased to present this Draft Final EPDP Report Final Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. The purpose in sending this draft Final Report is so that you can become acquainted with its layout and contents in advance of the release of the Final Report, expected on 20 February. It is hoped that this early release will facilitate your review of the final document. The EPDP Team is grateful to have two additional weeks for its deliberations.We are using the first week as a sort of “quiet period” to review the draft Final Report and have scheduled meetings for next week to reach conclusions on open issues. So we expect so substantive and non-substantive amendments to the report. With regard to the level of consensus, the report indicates those items where: - The Chair has indicated a consensus level and the EPDP Team has had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation - The Chair has indicated a level of Consensus and the EPDP Team has not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation - The Chair has not made a designation yet because the issue is still open for some discussion. In many (nearly all) of the open recommendations, we are very close to final language but we have attempted to be conservative in the consensus designation and so have left some of these recommendations with no designation as of yet. The language you are reading in this report is close to final. Sections that still remain open are designated with brackets. The next steps for those sections are highlighted in yellow. We will also conduct a final Consensus call on the entire document when the report is final to identify any issues raised by the interplay between the Recommendations. Finally, and there will be more about this when the final report is delivered, this work product represents a significant sacrifice in time and effort by the working group members and, more significantly, a willingness by them to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise for our common goals. Best regards, EPDP Leadership Team

3 2

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#301]
by ICANN 11 Feb '19

11 Feb '19

1 0

Deadline today: Document and Motion deadline Monday 11 February 2019 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 21 February 2019 at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 11 Feb '19

11 Feb '19

Dear all, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. Monday 11 February 2019 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday 21 February 2019 at 12:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a councilor and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/vYE2Bg Thank you very much. With kind regards, Nathalie

1 0