March 2020 - council - lists.icann.org

CLOSES TODAY: Tell Us What You Thought about the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum
by Nathalie Peregrine 19 Mar '20

19 Mar '20

CLOSES TODAY: Tell Us What You Thought about the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum From: Sally Newell Cohen, Senior Vice President, Global Communications Please take our short survey and give us your thoughts on the format, content, and collaboration tools as well as any suggested improvements for future meetings like this. Complete the survey here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. Thank you! Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

PLEASE READ: Preparation for GNSO Council Strategic Outlook Trends session 19 March 2020 21:30 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 19 Mar '20

19 Mar '20

Dear councilors, The GNSO Council Strategic Outlook trends session initially scheduled as a face-to-face session during ICANN67 has been replaced by a remote session taking place on Thursday 19 March 2020 at 21:30 UTC for 90 mins. Email and calendar invitations were sent out on the 6 March 2020. In order to prepare for this session, please be sure to read the attached document. Furthermore, please read the below: How it will work: After a brief introduction, the participants will be split in breakout rooms in Zoom for brainstorming. Each breakout room will have a MSSI staff member as support. Each subgroup will discuss and agree on trends , and will collaborate on a shared Google document to record their inputs. Subgroups will present their top trends to the whole group and discussion may follow. Participants will collaborate on Google documents, anyone with the link will be able to access the documents. Please let us know if you have any questions, Kind regards, Nathalie

3 2

FYI: [ICANN Community Leaders] 19 March 2020
by Terri Agnew 19 Mar '20

19 Mar '20

FYI From: SO-AC-SG-CLeaders <so-ac-sg-cleaders-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Community Leadership Digest <david.olive(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "policyinfo(a)icann.org" <policyinfo(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 10:00 AM To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org" <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org> Subject: [ICANN Community Leaders] 19 March 2020 [http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=33563394-1e36-468f-a43c-740dc1a6140c&a=1122025…] Thursday, 19 March 2020 ICANN Community Leadership Digest [https://files.constantcontact.com/304b3fd3501/31f30ab5-1445-45c3-aef7-c0ea4…] The ICANN org Policy Development Support function publishes this twice-weekly digest to help ICANN community leaders track requests and follow updates. Table of Contents Information Sharing · NEW: GDD Industry Summit and DNS Symposium Cancelled · NEW: Participate in Open Strategic Outlook Trends Sessions · CLOSES TODAY: Tell Us What You Thought about the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum · ENDS TOMORROW: EPDP Recommendation 17.2 Questionnaire · REMINDER: ICANN org Responds to Community Questions from ICANN67 Public Forum 1 · EXTENDED: Nomination Period for ICANN Community Excellence Award 2020 Now Open Public Comment · CLOSES TODAY: Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings in 2024-2028 and Revised Dates in 2022 · CLOSES TOMORROW: Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR2) Review Team Draft Report · CLOSES MONDAY: Initial Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Team – Phase 2 · Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements · Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 1 · Middle East and Adjoining Countries (MEAC) Strategy 2021-2025 · Revised Community Travel Support Guidelines · Proposal for Chinese Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules · Proposal for Bangla Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules · NEW: Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Information Sharing NEW: GDD Industry Summit and DNS Symposium Cancelled ICANN Announcement [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Yesterday, ICANN announced that its annual GDD Industry Summit and ICANN DNS Symposium, which were to be held in Paris, France, in early May 2020, have been cancelled. The decision to cancel these events was made in light of the rapidly evolving COVID-19 virus outbreak and, for the GDD Summit, included conversations with the Contracted Parties House. ICANN's primary concern is for the health and safety of its global multistakeholder community and its staff. We are monitoring this situation closely, and will update the community if there are any new developments or changes to planned meetings and activities. NEW: Participate in Open Strategic Outlook Trends Sessions From: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives ICANN invites the community to participate in an open strategic outlook trends session to help ICANN continue to be aware of trends that affect its mission and mandate. These sessions will build on past trend identification work to update our shared understanding of opportunities and challenges relevant to ICANN's current and future strategy. ICANN will hold two remote sessions for those unable to attend the stakeholder group-specific sessions planned. Participation is limited to 40 participants per session, on a first-come, first-served basis due to the breakout format. Sessions will be held in English. Session #1 Monday, 30 March 2020, 15:00-16:30 UTC: https://icann.zoom.us/j/549213104 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Session #2 Monday, 30 March 2020, 23:00-00:30 UTC: https://icann.zoom.us/j/549213104 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> CLOSES TODAY: Tell Us What You Thought about the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum From: Sally Newell Cohen, Senior Vice President, Global Communications Please take our short survey and give us your thoughts on the format, content, and collaboration tools as well as any suggested improvements for future meetings like this. Complete the survey here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. ENDS TOMORROW: EPDP Recommendation 17.2 Questionnaire From: Cyrus Namazi, Senior Vice President, Global Domains Division As part of ICANN org’s research for Recommendation 17.2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Phase 1 Final Report, the Global Domains Division (GDD) has prepared a short questionnaire to collect input on the risks, feasibility, and costs of differentiating between legal and natural persons in registration data directory services (RDDS). Members of ICANN community groups with a view on the subject are invited to fill out and share the questionnaire [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> before Friday, 20 March 2020. Results will be integrated into the report on Recommendation 17.2 for the EPDP Team. REMINDER: ICANN org Responds to Community Questions from ICANN67 Public Forum 1 From: Sally Newell Cohen, Senior Vice President, Global Communications ICANN org has published responses to questions posed during the first ICANN67 Public Forum, which focused on the proposed transfer of ownership of the Public Interest Registry. Click here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> to read. EXTENDED: Nomination Period for ICANN Community Excellence Award 2020 Now Open From: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support The nomination period for the ICANN Community Excellence Award 2020 is now open. Formerly known as the Multistakeholder Ethos Award, the ICANN Community Excellence Award recognizes ICANN community members who substantively contribute to policymaking within the ICANN ecosystem and who are deeply invested in developing consensus-based solutions within ICANN’s multistakeholder model. Learn more about the nomination process [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> and submit your nominations by Friday, 27 March 2020 here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. Public Comment CLOSES TODAY: Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings in 2024-2028 and Revised Dates in 2022 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Thursday, 19 March 2020 CLOSES TOMORROW: Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR2) Review Team Draft Report [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Friday, 20 March 2020 CLOSES MONDAY: Initial Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Team – Phase 2 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 23 March 2020 Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Tuesday, 31 March 2020 Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 1 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Tuesday, 31 March 2020 Middle East and Adjoining Countries (MEAC) Strategy 2021-2025 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Friday, 3 April 2020 Revised Community Travel Support Guidelines [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 13 April 2020 Proposal for Chinese Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 20 April 2020 Proposal for Bangla Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Thursday, 23 April 2020 NEW: Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 27 April 2020 Volume 2, Issue 23 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> | Next Issue: Monday, 23 March 2020

1 0

Board action - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations
by Caitlin Tubergen 18 Mar '20

18 Mar '20

Sent on behalf of the Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department: Dear GNSO Councillors, The purpose of this note is to highlight the 25 February 2020 Board action on the Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. ICANN org wishes to notify you that the ICANN Board resolved to pass through two recommendations to the GNSO Council, in whole or in part, for your consideration, as documented in the scorecard associated with the Board resolution. Specifically, please see below Recommendations CC.1 and CC.4 RDS-WHOIS2 Recommendation CC.1: “The ICANN Board should initiate action intended to ensure that gTLD domain names suspended due to RDS (WHOIS) contact data which the registrar knows to be incorrect, and that remains incorrect until the registration is due for deletion, should be treated as follows: (1) The RDS (WHOIS) record should include a notation that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data; and (2) Domain names with this notation should not be unsuspended without correcting the data.” Board resolution: The Board approved this recommendation and directed this item “to be included in the next round of contractual negotiations with the Contracted Parties”, with a note that “it cannot require or guarantee any negotiation outcomes”. The Board also noted that “this is an area that the GNSO Council might wish to take into a policy development process separate from any recourse to the policy development process that might be incorporated into the negotiation process”, and passed through this recommendation to the GNSO Council “for purposes of considering such initiation”. Recommendation CC.4: “The ICANN Board should recommend the GNSO adopt a risk-based approach to incorporating requirements for measurement, auditing, tracking, reporting and enforcement in all new RDS policies.” Board resolution: The Board passed the recommendation through to the GNSO Council, “with reference to documentation of clarifications received from RDS-WHOIS2 Implementation Shepherds in the 29 January 2020 discussion with the RDS Board Caucus Group”, i.e. “this recommendation could be directed to the GNSO”. Additionally, we would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing this recommendation through, the Board is neither accepting nor rejecting the recommendation. The Board is careful to respect the remit and roles of the different parts of the ICANN community and is not directing Board or ICANN org action that would usurp another group's remit”. These recommendations are for your consideration. Background The Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review is one of the four Specific Reviews anchored in Section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws. The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) produced 22 final recommendations for Board consideration and released its Final Report on 3 September 2019. The RDS-WHOIS2-RT Final Report is the culmination of over two years of work by 11 review team members, representing over 1,000 hours of meetings and countless more hours of work. As required by section 4.6 of ICANN Bylaws, the Final Report was published for public comment to inform Board action on the final recommendations. The Board took action on each of the 22 recommendations produced by the RDS-WHOIS2-RT https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. The Board’s action on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-wh…. We thank you for your collaboration and would welcome any updates on your progress in addressing, as appropriate, these recommendations, to be included into ICANN org’s reporting. Please let us know whether you have any questions. Thank you. Best regards, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department

1 0

PLEASE SHARE: ICANN Community Excellence Award - Nomination Closes 27 March 2020
by Andrea Glandon 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-03-16-en ICANN Community Excellence Award: Nomination Closes 27 March 2020 LOS ANGELES – 16 March 2020 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) reminds community members that the nomination period for ICANN's Community Excellence Award is open until 27 March 2020 23:59 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC). The ICANN Community Excellence Award recognizes community members who have significantly invested in consensus-based solutions and have contributed substantively to the ICANN multistakeholder model. The ideal recipient(s) will have: · Participated in the ICANN community for a minimum of five years. · Served in multiple ICANN working groups or committees. · Collaborated significantly with more than one Supporting Organization (SO) and/or Advisory Committee (AC). Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the SO/AC chairs using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrates an ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANN stakeholders with the aim of building consensus. 2. Facilitates dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner through the spirit of collaboration, showing empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests. 3. Demonstrates additional support for ICANN multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit nominations via this nomination form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeUp_xq_CmT1hj10olmmrE9CvlGxsuQuED…> and include detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted to exellenceaward2020(a)icann.org<mailto:excellenceaward2020@icann.org>. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2020 at ICANN68 in Kuala Lumpur. For more information on the award program, please refer to the ICANN Community Wiki.<https://community.icann.org/x/YyOAAw>

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 11 March 2020
by Nathalie Peregrine 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday 11 March 2020 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 27 March 2020. Thank you. Kind Regards, Nathalie

1 0

Action Items: GNSO Council meeting 11 March 2020
by Nathalie Peregrine 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

Dear Councilors, Please find the action items, as stated during the meeting, below arising from the GNSO Council meeting held on Wednesday 11 March 2020. Please take note of the action items coming out of the Council meeting and the proposed timing for delivering on these actions. Please ensure your wiki logins are up to date as all Action Items have been assigned to councilors and/or staff and posted on the Action Item wiki page here<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>. If you are logged into the wiki when you go to that page, your name will be highlighted alongside the action item assigned to you. Please refer to this page for the recent status updates on the Action items. Please note that actions for all councilors are highlighted below. ACTION ITEMS FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 11 March 2020 Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 mins) Action Item: None Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) Action Item: None Item 3: Consent Agenda (0 minutes) Action Item: None Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Projects List Review (70 minutes) Action Item: None Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Work Prioritization - 2020 Work Plan (30 minutes) Action Item: * GNSO Council, in collaboration with GNSO Support Staff, to develop a framework of prioritization for upcoming GNSO policy work based on the input received from GNSO Councilors and their respective stakeholder groups/constituencies. * Keith Drazek to encourage councilors to share the survey feedback received from their groups on the Council mailing list (missing IPC and ISPCP) Item 6: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (0 minutes) 6.1 Data Accuracy in EPDP Phase 2 Action Item: * Keith Drazek to send an email to the GNSO Council mailing list regarding the possible next steps of the data accuracy issue, with the aim to provide a response to the EPDP Team by Friday, 13 March [COMPLETED] 6.2 Open Mic Action Item: * None Thank you! Nathalie

1 0

Re: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps
by Drazek, Keith 16 Mar '20

16 Mar '20

Hi all, As a follow-up to Rafik’s 6 March email (below) and our brief discussion during yesterday’s Council meeting, I’d like to share my current thinking and propose a path forward. If anyone has views to share, please do so now; the EPDP Phase 2 Team needs our guidance in short order. I’ve done some additional homework since yesterday’s call, so I hope I’ve captured everything here accurately. 1. The issue of registrant data accuracy is an important topic that deserves full and thorough consideration, including its impact on GNSO policy, contracted party agreements, and other ICANN processes such as ARS. As such, it is not only a policy issue, and there are likely non-GDPR-specific factors that will need to be considered. 2. The EPDP Team Phase 1 Final Report Recommendation #4 said, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy.” The ICANN Board approved this recommendation without further guidance or comment. 3. There is not agreement within the EPDP on the meaning of “data accuracy” in the context of GDPR. There is disagreement over whether it is only from the perspective of the data subject or also third parties? There was a legal memo received during Phase 1 on the topic of data accuracy and a legal question was developed during Phase 2 to help clarify the meaning, but it has not been submitted. 4. The charter for the EPDP did not specify or identify the topic of data accuracy as within scope, but the EPDP Phase 1 final report included a reference to data accuracy in footnote #24. That footnote said: “The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.” This footnote did not specify that such further consideration take place in Phase 2, but the issue was included in the Phase 2 work plan that was approved by the GNSO Council. 5. During Phase 1, the EPDP Team requested external legal counsel guidance on the topic of accuracy in the context of GDPR, and received the following summary answer: “In sum, because compliance with the Accuracy Principle is based on a reasonableness standard, ICANN and the relevant parties will be better placed to evaluate whether these procedures are sufficient. From our vantage point, as the procedures do require affirmative steps that will help confirm accuracy, unless there is reason to believe these are insufficient, we see no clear requirement to review them.” 6. There is not sufficient clarity at this time on how existing accuracy requirements have been impacted by GDPR. As such, in order to properly consider and scope further work on registrant data accuracy, more discussion is needed among interested/impacted parties, including ICANN Org. 7. The EPDP is scheduled to conclude its Phase 2 work in June with its deliberations on priority 2 items, of which accuracy is one, needing to complete by 24 March at the latest to be included in the Final Report. Furthermore, and there is no FY21 budget assigned for its continuation beyond that time. Under these constraints (time, resources, complexity), our ability to reach a policy solution in a couple of months is highly unlikely if not impossible and could delay delivery of the Final Report on SSAD which has been identified by basically everyone as priority #1. In light of the above, my recommended path forward for the Council and EPDP is as follows: 1. Council acknowledge the importance and complexity of the topic, but also the time and resource constraints noted above. 2. Council will discuss and consider possible next steps, including establishing a small group/scoping team to establish a framework to address the issue of registrant data accuracy across policy/contracts/procedures. 3. Council to acknowledge the possible impact of the data accuracy issue in the context of SSAD implementation and RDDS, and recognize the need to prioritize accordingly. 4. Encourage the EPDP team to submit the pending legal memo to help inform the work of any future scoping team. I hope that strikes the right balance to ensure the work will be done, while giving the community space and time to approach the issue holistically and to carefully develop any needed policy recommendations. I shared this with Rafik and Pam and we are in agreement. We were asked to respond by Friday the 13th, but that doesn’t leave much time for feedback, so please respond by 11:59 UTC on Monday 16 March. This will allow us to deliver our reply to the EPDP Team prior to their Tuesday call. Thanks, Keith From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 6:32 PM To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP Hi all, I am sending a request from EPDP team chair asking guidance from GNSO council regarding WHOIS accuracy. There was disagreement within the EPDP team if the topic is within scope or not. So we would like to get from council guidance regarding its expectations on WHOIS accuracy issue in phase 2 and if the EPDP team is expected to deliberate on it or not asap, taking into account the GNSO council and ICANN org ongoing correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-05dec1…> on the matter. The EPDP team chair asked that GNSO council can provide guidance by Friday 13th march so that the EPDP team will have time to receive further guidance from the external legal council (if applicable). The time constraint can be also explained that EPDP team is currently deliberating priority 2 topics during the initial report public comment period. Best Regards, Rafik

7 7

Re: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps
by DiBiase, Gregory 16 Mar '20

16 Mar '20

Also trying this again with the Council List as a CC. From: DiBiase, Gregory Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 11:59 AM To: 'Drazek, Keith' <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps Hi Keith, I support your recommended path. It seems like the right way to ensure we address concerns regarding accuracy while continuing to move the EPDP forward. Thanks, Greg DiBiase From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 3:34 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL][council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps Hi all, As a follow-up to Rafik’s 6 March email (below) and our brief discussion during yesterday’s Council meeting, I’d like to share my current thinking and propose a path forward. If anyone has views to share, please do so now; the EPDP Phase 2 Team needs our guidance in short order. I’ve done some additional homework since yesterday’s call, so I hope I’ve captured everything here accurately. 1. The issue of registrant data accuracy is an important topic that deserves full and thorough consideration, including its impact on GNSO policy, contracted party agreements, and other ICANN processes such as ARS. As such, it is not only a policy issue, and there are likely non-GDPR-specific factors that will need to be considered. 2. The EPDP Team Phase 1 Final Report Recommendation #4 said, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy.” The ICANN Board approved this recommendation without further guidance or comment. 3. There is not agreement within the EPDP on the meaning of “data accuracy” in the context of GDPR. There is disagreement over whether it is only from the perspective of the data subject or also third parties? There was a legal memo received during Phase 1 on the topic of data accuracy and a legal question was developed during Phase 2 to help clarify the meaning, but it has not been submitted. 4. The charter for the EPDP did not specify or identify the topic of data accuracy as within scope, but the EPDP Phase 1 final report included a reference to data accuracy in footnote #24. That footnote said: “The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.” This footnote did not specify that such further consideration take place in Phase 2, but the issue was included in the Phase 2 work plan that was approved by the GNSO Council. 5. During Phase 1, the EPDP Team requested external legal counsel guidance on the topic of accuracy in the context of GDPR, and received the following summary answer: “In sum, because compliance with the Accuracy Principle is based on a reasonableness standard, ICANN and the relevant parties will be better placed to evaluate whether these procedures are sufficient. From our vantage point, as the procedures do require affirmative steps that will help confirm accuracy, unless there is reason to believe these are insufficient, we see no clear requirement to review them.” 6. There is not sufficient clarity at this time on how existing accuracy requirements have been impacted by GDPR. As such, in order to properly consider and scope further work on registrant data accuracy, more discussion is needed among interested/impacted parties, including ICANN Org. 7. The EPDP is scheduled to conclude its Phase 2 work in June with its deliberations on priority 2 items, of which accuracy is one, needing to complete by 24 March at the latest to be included in the Final Report. Furthermore, and there is no FY21 budget assigned for its continuation beyond that time. Under these constraints (time, resources, complexity), our ability to reach a policy solution in a couple of months is highly unlikely if not impossible and could delay delivery of the Final Report on SSAD which has been identified by basically everyone as priority #1. In light of the above, my recommended path forward for the Council and EPDP is as follows: 1. Council acknowledge the importance and complexity of the topic, but also the time and resource constraints noted above. 2. Council will discuss and consider possible next steps, including establishing a small group/scoping team to establish a framework to address the issue of registrant data accuracy across policy/contracts/procedures. 3. Council to acknowledge the possible impact of the data accuracy issue in the context of SSAD implementation and RDDS, and recognize the need to prioritize accordingly. 4. Encourage the EPDP team to submit the pending legal memo to help inform the work of any future scoping team. I hope that strikes the right balance to ensure the work will be done, while giving the community space and time to approach the issue holistically and to carefully develop any needed policy recommendations. I shared this with Rafik and Pam and we are in agreement. We were asked to respond by Friday the 13th, but that doesn’t leave much time for feedback, so please respond by 11:59 UTC on Monday 16 March. This will allow us to deliver our reply to the EPDP Team prior to their Tuesday call. Thanks, Keith From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 6:32 PM To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP Hi all, I am sending a request from EPDP team chair asking guidance from GNSO council regarding WHOIS accuracy. There was disagreement within the EPDP team if the topic is within scope or not. So we would like to get from council guidance regarding its expectations on WHOIS accuracy issue in phase 2 and if the EPDP team is expected to deliberate on it or not asap, taking into account the GNSO council and ICANN org ongoing correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-05dec1…> on the matter. The EPDP team chair asked that GNSO council can provide guidance by Friday 13th march so that the EPDP team will have time to receive further guidance from the external legal council (if applicable). The time constraint can be also explained that EPDP team is currently deliberating priority 2 topics during the initial report public comment period. Best Regards, Rafik

1 0

Re: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps
by John McElwaine 16 Mar '20

16 Mar '20

Trying this again with the Council List as a CC. From: John McElwaine Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 1:02 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps Dear Keith, and GNSO Councilors, Thank you for kicking off discussion on this issue. The IPC agrees with the background you set forth and the importance and complexity of this topic. However, instead of another small group to be formed later to address this issue, the IPC believes that the issue of data accuracy is properly within the scope of the EPDP[1] and should be handled by a EPDP small team. Data Accuracy is a fundamental requirement under GDPR Art. 5 and accuracy is woven into the Temp. Spec. that the EPDP was chartered to assess (see Temp. Spec. language below). Moreover, the EPDP should also continue its important work on accuracy because programs such as ARS are critical, not only to the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS, but also to the concept of data controllership which is also critical to contracted parties’ liability under GDPR . As such, the GNSO Council should continue the engagement with ICANN org on data accuracy. In the interest of clarity, the IPC notes that the only remaining legal question being considered by the EPDP is to clarify ambiguity in previous advice<CallRail%20will%20produce,%20all%20known,%20non-privileged%20documents%20in%20its%20possession%20responsive%20to%20this%20request> received from Bird & Bird. As such, the IPC believes that the accuracy question of RDS data can and should be addressed by the Phase 2 EPDP team as soon as possible. To accomplish this, we recommend that an EPDP small team be formed to work on new language to be included in the EPDP’s Final Report. We note that some may assert that “time is running out” and that any work not completed by the end of June, when the GNSO funding runs out, will not be addressed. The IPC is confident that the current work on accuracy can be completed swiftly, and rejects artificial deadlines that may curtail this important work or attempts to close the EPDP before it completes the work plan as outlined and defined in its GNSO Council approved charter. Finally, we should not enter this task believing that additional budget is not available for this important work. To the remaining question pertaining to ICANN org and ARS, the IPC notes that the concept of accuracy related to ARS actually underpins the open question of controllership of RDS data at issue in the EPDP. In this regard, the IPC considers ICANN org’s response to be an attempt to diminish its own controllership over RDS data, thereby attempting to limit its own liability. The concept that a data controller would have difficulty in accessing data under its controllership is an absurdity of ICANN’s own creation. If ICANN actually intends to undertake the controllership role it has stated it is willing to accept, which role would diminish liability for contracted parties (and which appears desirable for the entirety of the GNSO), the GNSO should challenge this apparent abdication of responsibility by ICANN org. As a data controller, there is no question that ICANN org should be able to access the data it needs for its own purposes, including its important ARS work. Accordingly, the IPC encourages our GNSO colleagues not to view data accuracy as an obligation for contracted parties, nor as a risk for at-risk data subjects, but rather as an opportunity to allocate appropriate controllership to ICANN org where it belongs. Kind regards, John and Flip ___________________________________________ [1] Data Accuracy is Within Scope Data accuracy is important and, inf fact, European Commission representatives commenting upon ICANN's proposed GDPR-compliant WHOIS models made it clear that “personal data shall be accurate and kept up to date. Every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (retroactive database data correction with regards to the factual data situation found out during the investigation). To comply with the data quality principle, reasonable steps should be taken to ensure the accuracy of any personal data obtained.” This point was stressed by Georgios Tselentis, a representative of the GAC from the European Commission, on the EPDP call of March 12, where he reminded the team that under the GDPR accuracy was not an optional concept but one that was critical to ensure legal compliance with the GDPR. See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=126419071 Temp Spec Language (link<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>) There are several references to data accuracy in the temp spec. Section 4 that describes the lawfulness and purposes for processing gTLD Registration Data. Section 4.1 references the bylaws and explicitly states ● maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning registered names and name servers; Section 4.3 also references the bylaws and the need to facilitate 3rd party processing of registration data and the ICANN requirement to "use commercially reasonable efforts to enforce its policies relating to registration directory services," including by working with stakeholders to "explore structural changes to improve accuracy and access to generic top-level domain registration data," "as well as consider[ing] safeguards for protecting such data." Section 4.4 outlines the ICANN purposes for processing the data including 4.4.2. Providing access to accurate, reliable, and uniform Registration Data based on legitimate interests not outweighed by the fundamental rights of relevant data subjects, consistent with GDPR; Finally, Appendix C on Data Processing Requirements defines ICANN, Registries and Registrars as controllers for various processing activities. It also defines a list of "Principles for processing" for those controllers. 1. Principles for Processing Each Controller will observe the following principles to govern its Processing of Personal Data contained in Registration Data, except as required by applicable laws or regulations. Personal Data SHALL: [........] 1.4. be accurate and, if necessary, kept current, as appropriate to the purposes for which they are Processed ("accuracy"); EPDP Phase 1 Final Report (link<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…>) Despite the lack of specifics in the charter, the final report references accuracy in several places. EPDP Team Recommendation #4. The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy. [6] footnote [6] states The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System. In the SSAC group statement in Appendix G: "A vital ICANN policy is the accuracy complaint process, where third parties have the right to submit data accuracy complaints, and registrars and registrants must respond per the requirements. The accuracy complaint process has been a vital accountability and compliance mechanism that has helped stop and prevent numerous serious abuse and security issues. " From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:34 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP - Follow up from Council Meeting and Next Steps ◄External Email► - From: council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> Hi all, As a follow-up to Rafik’s 6 March email (below) and our brief discussion during yesterday’s Council meeting, I’d like to share my current thinking and propose a path forward. If anyone has views to share, please do so now; the EPDP Phase 2 Team needs our guidance in short order. I’ve done some additional homework since yesterday’s call, so I hope I’ve captured everything here accurately. 1. The issue of registrant data accuracy is an important topic that deserves full and thorough consideration, including its impact on GNSO policy, contracted party agreements, and other ICANN processes such as ARS. As such, it is not only a policy issue, and there are likely non-GDPR-specific factors that will need to be considered. 2. The EPDP Team Phase 1 Final Report Recommendation #4 said, “The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy.” The ICANN Board approved this recommendation without further guidance or comment. 3. There is not agreement within the EPDP on the meaning of “data accuracy” in the context of GDPR. There is disagreement over whether it is only from the perspective of the data subject or also third parties? There was a legal memo received during Phase 1 on the topic of data accuracy and a legal question was developed during Phase 2 to help clarify the meaning, but it has not been submitted. 4. The charter for the EPDP did not specify or identify the topic of data accuracy as within scope, but the EPDP Phase 1 final report included a reference to data accuracy in footnote #24. That footnote said: “The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.” This footnote did not specify that such further consideration take place in Phase 2, but the issue was included in the Phase 2 work plan that was approved by the GNSO Council. 5. During Phase 1, the EPDP Team requested external legal counsel guidance on the topic of accuracy in the context of GDPR, and received the following summary answer: “In sum, because compliance with the Accuracy Principle is based on a reasonableness standard, ICANN and the relevant parties will be better placed to evaluate whether these procedures are sufficient. From our vantage point, as the procedures do require affirmative steps that will help confirm accuracy, unless there is reason to believe these are insufficient, we see no clear requirement to review them.” 6. There is not sufficient clarity at this time on how existing accuracy requirements have been impacted by GDPR. As such, in order to properly consider and scope further work on registrant data accuracy, more discussion is needed among interested/impacted parties, including ICANN Org. 7. The EPDP is scheduled to conclude its Phase 2 work in June with its deliberations on priority 2 items, of which accuracy is one, needing to complete by 24 March at the latest to be included in the Final Report. Furthermore, and there is no FY21 budget assigned for its continuation beyond that time. Under these constraints (time, resources, complexity), our ability to reach a policy solution in a couple of months is highly unlikely if not impossible and could delay delivery of the Final Report on SSAD which has been identified by basically everyone as priority #1. In light of the above, my recommended path forward for the Council and EPDP is as follows: 1. Council acknowledge the importance and complexity of the topic, but also the time and resource constraints noted above. 2. Council will discuss and consider possible next steps, including establishing a small group/scoping team to establish a framework to address the issue of registrant data accuracy across policy/contracts/procedures. 3. Council to acknowledge the possible impact of the data accuracy issue in the context of SSAD implementation and RDDS, and recognize the need to prioritize accordingly. 4. Encourage the EPDP team to submit the pending legal memo to help inform the work of any future scoping team. I hope that strikes the right balance to ensure the work will be done, while giving the community space and time to approach the issue holistically and to carefully develop any needed policy recommendations. I shared this with Rafik and Pam and we are in agreement. We were asked to respond by Friday the 13th, but that doesn’t leave much time for feedback, so please respond by 11:59 UTC on Monday 16 March. This will allow us to deliver our reply to the EPDP Team prior to their Tuesday call. Thanks, Keith From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 6:32 PM To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Seeking guidance for EPDP Hi all, I am sending a request from EPDP team chair asking guidance from GNSO council regarding WHOIS accuracy. There was disagreement within the EPDP team if the topic is within scope or not. So we would like to get from council guidance regarding its expectations on WHOIS accuracy issue in phase 2 and if the EPDP team is expected to deliberate on it or not asap, taking into account the GNSO council and ICANN org ongoing correspondence<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> on the matter. The EPDP team chair asked that GNSO council can provide guidance by Friday 13th march so that the EPDP team will have time to receive further guidance from the external legal council (if applicable). The time constraint can be also explained that EPDP team is currently deliberating priority 2 topics during the initial report public comment period. Best Regards, Rafik Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

1 0