Hello Pam, I certainly think that neither the chronological structure, nor the recommendations-cum-recommendations style is appropriate for other people than the insiders of the process. Since I was not a direct participant I didn't dare to ask for more than a table of contents and a clear statement of the purpose of the document. Otherwise I don't think in this version is going to make the Council and the PDP 3.0 very popular in the community. But I respect the voice of the majority before making more marginal comments. In my view it needs a clear structure and clear international standard english style, to which I can't add much. The PDP members deserve better for their arduous work. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-03-31 18:13, Pam Little escribió:

Hi all,

I have added more comments and minor edits to the version Ayden circulated earlier.

I admit this is the first time I read a GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the Board and it strikes me that the report template might need to be updated.

Specifically, what seem missing in this draft report are things like policy goals, policy impact analysis and metrics to measure effectiveness of the new policy. These were recommendations from the Data & Metrics Working Group and the most recent GNSO Review, which were approved by the Council and supposedly fully implemented but neither the EPDP Charter, the EPDP Final Report nor this draft report cover these topics. I would have thought these topic are essential for the Council and the Board when approving any PDP/EPDP final recommendations.

I note there are relevant sections (such as 3 and 10) in the draft report but, as currently drafted, Section 3 reads like a restatement of the concerns or positions of certain SGs and Cs while Section 10 does not contain substantive analysis:

"3 (AN ANALYSIS OF HOW THE ISSUE(S) WOULD AFFECT EACH CONSTITUENCY OR STAKEHOLDER GROUP, INCLUDING ANY FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE CONSTITUENCY OR STAKEHOLDER GROUP) SEEMS TO BE JUST A REHASH OF CONCERNS OR POSITIONS EACH SG'S/C'S ....

10. IMPACT/IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS FROM ICANN STAFF

The internal ICANN org implementation team has formed and has begun to review the recommendations to analyze the implementation requirements. ICANN org considers the scope of effort required for this implementation to be significant and extensive. "

I welcome others' thoughts.

Kind regards,

Pam

...

------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Sent At:2019 Mar. 30 (Sat.) 21:43 Recipient:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] Recommendations Report on EPDP

Hi Caitlin, all-

Please find attached some suggested edits to this document.

Thanks,

Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:07 AM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Councilors:

Attached, please find the draft GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board on the EPDP recommendations for your consideration.

Following the customary practice, this report will be added to the Council's 18 April consent agenda, unless there are any comments or concerns with this approach.

If you have any proposed edits or comments on the report, please kindly submit them by the document deadline of MONDAY, 8 APRIL 2018.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Caitlin

--

CAITLIN TUBERGEN

Policy Senior Manager - GNSO

ICANN

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Hi Carlos - Thank you for the comments. At this stage of a PDP/EPDP process (from the Council to the Board), a succinct report with the necessary elements seem more appropriate. Hi Marika - Thank you for providing the additional background. Given that a lot has changed since 2004, doesn't it make sense to update the report template to include those elements I mentioned earlier and omit those that are included in the Board briefing paper? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent At:2019 Apr. 1 (Mon.) 14:27 Recipient:Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] Recommendations Report on EPDP Hi All, To provide a little bit of background on the approach and style of this report, it was one of the improvements that came out of the 2004 GNSO review during which the PDP in its current format was conceived. At the time not all Board materials were published so there was no real visibility as to what information was being provided to the ICANN Board. As such, the GNSO decided that in addition to the Board Paper that is prepared by Org, the GNSO Council would accompany the approval of GNSO policy recommendations with a GNSO Council recommendations report to the ICANN Board which would include the information that the Board would typically review in its assessment of GNSO policy recommendations. Hopefully this background is helpful as you further consider updates / edits. Best regards, Marika On 31 Mar 2019, at 21:11, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote: Hello Pam, I certainly think that neither the chronological structure, nor the recommendations-cum-recommendations style is appropriate for other people than the insiders of the process. Since I was not a direct participant I didn't dare to ask for more than a table of contents and a clear statement of the purpose of the document. Otherwise I don't think in this version is going to make the Council and the PDP 3.0 very popular in the community. But I respect the voice of the majority before making more marginal comments. In my view it needs a clear structure and clear international standard english style, to which I can't add much. The PDP members deserve better for their arduous work. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-03-31 18:13, Pam Little escribió: Hi all, I have added more comments and minor edits to the version Ayden circulated earlier. I admit this is the first time I read a GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the Board and it strikes me that the report template might need to be updated. Specifically, what seem missing in this draft report are things like policy goals, policy impact analysis and metrics to measure effectiveness of the new policy. These were recommendations from the Data & Metrics Working Group and the most recent GNSO Review, which were approved by the Council and supposedly fully implemented but neither the EPDP Charter, the EPDP Final Report nor this draft report cover these topics. I would have thought these topic are essential for the Council and the Board when approving any PDP/EPDP final recommendations. I note there are relevant sections (such as 3 and 10) in the draft report but, as currently drafted, Section 3 reads like a restatement of the concerns or positions of certain SGs and Cs while Section 10 does not contain substantive analysis: "3 (An analysis of how the issue(s) would affect each Constituency or Stakeholder Group, including any financial impact on the Constituency or Stakeholder Group) seems to be just a rehash of concerns or positions each SG's/C's .... 10. Impact/implementation considerations from ICANN staff The internal ICANN org implementation team has formed and has begun to review the recommendations to analyze the implementation requirements. ICANN org considers the scope of effort required for this implementation to be significant and extensive. " I welcome others' thoughts. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Sent At:2019 Mar. 30 (Sat.) 21:43 Recipient:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] Recommendations Report on EPDP Hi Caitlin, all- Please find attached some suggested edits to this document. Thanks, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:07 AM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote: Dear Councilors: Attached, please find the draft GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board on the EPDP recommendations for your consideration. Following the customary practice, this report will be added to the Council's 18 April consent agenda, unless there are any comments or concerns with this approach. If you have any proposed edits or comments on the report, please kindly submit them by the document deadline of Monday, 8 April 2018. Thank you. Kind regards, Caitlin -- Caitlin Tubergen Policy Senior Manager - GNSO ICANN _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Dear Councilors: Thank you for the speedy and helpful feedback thus far. Per Carlos’ suggestion, I have added a table of contents to the report. I have also addressed some of the questions in the document. @Pam: regarding your suggestion about the policy impact analysis, the EPDP Team, in p. 77 of its report, noted the following: Per the EPDP Team’s Charter, the goal of this effort is to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, as is or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection law. As part of this determination, the EPDP Team has considered the elements of the Temporary Specification as outlined in the charter and answered the charter questions. The EPDP Team has considered what subsidiary recommendations it might make for future work by the GNSO which might be necessary to ensure relevant Consensus Policies, including those related to registration data, are reassessed to become consistent with applicable law (see relevant recommendations). The EPDP Team recommends that as part of the implementation process further consideration will be given to a set of metrics to help inform the evaluation to measure success of these policy recommendations. Accordingly, the metrics and effectiveness of the Policy will be items covered in the implementation of the policy, and we will certainly flag this for our colleagues in GDD. The impact analysis metrics would generally be reviewed by the PDP WG in its Final Report; however, given the externally-imposed deadline the EPDP Team was working under, this item was moved to implementation. Best regards, Caitlin From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Date: Monday, April 1, 2019 at 7:49 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Recommendations Report on EPDP Thanks Marika, 1. If you can send me a table of contents as per my initial suggestion yesterday, I'm happy to thelp with the logic of the document. 2. I can't help much with a trasnlation into standard english, but it would really help us, English as a second or third language, to get to the core and or purpose of the document and make a rational decision on the next Coucnil meeting 3. Sorry, I was not there in 2004. Cheers --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-03-31 21:27, Marika Konings escribió: Hi All, To provide a little bit of background on the approach and style of this report, it was one of the improvements that came out of the 2004 GNSO review during which the PDP in its current format was conceived. At the time not all Board materials were published so there was no real visibility as to what information was being provided to the ICANN Board. As such, the GNSO decided that in addition to the Board Paper that is prepared by Org, the GNSO Council would accompany the approval of GNSO policy recommendations with a GNSO Council recommendations report to the ICANN Board which would include the information that the Board would typically review in its assessment of GNSO policy recommendations. Hopefully this background is helpful as you further consider updates / edits. Best regards, Marika On 31 Mar 2019, at 21:11, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote: Hello Pam, I certainly think that neither the chronological structure, nor the recommendations-cum-recommendations style is appropriate for other people than the insiders of the process. Since I was not a direct participant I didn't dare to ask for more than a table of contents and a clear statement of the purpose of the document. Otherwise I don't think in this version is going to make the Council and the PDP 3.0 very popular in the community. But I respect the voice of the majority before making more marginal comments. In my view it needs a clear structure and clear international standard english style, to which I can't add much. The PDP members deserve better for their arduous work. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-03-31 18:13, Pam Little escribió: Hi all, I have added more comments and minor edits to the version Ayden circulated earlier. I admit this is the first time I read a GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the Board and it strikes me that the report template might need to be updated. Specifically, what seem missing in this draft report are things like policy goals, policy impact analysis and metrics to measure effectiveness of the new policy. These were recommendations from the Data & Metrics Working Group and the most recent GNSO Review, which were approved by the Council and supposedly fully implemented but neither the EPDP Charter, the EPDP Final Report nor this draft report cover these topics. I would have thought these topic are essential for the Council and the Board when approving any PDP/EPDP final recommendations. I note there are relevant sections (such as 3 and 10) in the draft report but, as currently drafted, Section 3 reads like a restatement of the concerns or positions of certain SGs and Cs while Section 10 does not contain substantive analysis: "3 (An analysis of how the issue(s) would affect each Constituency or Stakeholder Group, including any financial impact on the Constituency or Stakeholder Group) seems to be just a rehash of concerns or positions each SG's/C's .... 10. Impact/implementation considerations from ICANN staff The internal ICANN org implementation team has formed and has begun to review the recommendations to analyze the implementation requirements. ICANN org considers the scope of effort required for this implementation to be significant and extensive. " I welcome others' thoughts. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Sent At:2019 Mar. 30 (Sat.) 21:43 Recipient:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] Recommendations Report on EPDP Hi Caitlin, all- Please find attached some suggested edits to this document. Thanks, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:07 AM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote: Dear Councilors: Attached, please find the draft GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board on the EPDP recommendations for your consideration. Following the customary practice, this report will be added to the Council's 18 April consent agenda, unless there are any comments or concerns with this approach. If you have any proposed edits or comments on the report, please kindly submit them by the document deadline of Monday, 8 April 2018. Thank you. Kind regards, Caitlin -- Caitlin Tubergen Policy Senior Manager - GNSO ICANN _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Dear Councilors: This is a friendly reminder that any further edits to the EPDP GNSO Council Recommendations report are due today. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin -- Caitlin Tubergen Policy Senior Manager - GNSO ICANN From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Date: Monday, April 1, 2019 at 1:13 PM To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Recommendations Report on EPDP Dear Councilors: Thank you for the speedy and helpful feedback thus far. Per Carlos’ suggestion, I have added a table of contents to the report. I have also addressed some of the questions in the document. @Pam: regarding your suggestion about the policy impact analysis, the EPDP Team, in p. 77 of its report, noted the following: Per the EPDP Team’s Charter, the goal of this effort is to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, as is or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection law. As part of this determination, the EPDP Team has considered the elements of the Temporary Specification as outlined in the charter and answered the charter questions. The EPDP Team has considered what subsidiary recommendations it might make for future work by the GNSO which might be necessary to ensure relevant Consensus Policies, including those related to registration data, are reassessed to become consistent with applicable law (see relevant recommendations). The EPDP Team recommends that as part of the implementation process further consideration will be given to a set of metrics to help inform the evaluation to measure success of these policy recommendations. Accordingly, the metrics and effectiveness of the Policy will be items covered in the implementation of the policy, and we will certainly flag this for our colleagues in GDD. The impact analysis metrics would generally be reviewed by the PDP WG in its Final Report; however, given the externally-imposed deadline the EPDP Team was working under, this item was moved to implementation. Best regards, Caitlin From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Date: Monday, April 1, 2019 at 7:49 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Recommendations Report on EPDP Thanks Marika, 1. If you can send me a table of contents as per my initial suggestion yesterday, I'm happy to thelp with the logic of the document. 2. I can't help much with a trasnlation into standard english, but it would really help us, English as a second or third language, to get to the core and or purpose of the document and make a rational decision on the next Coucnil meeting 3. Sorry, I was not there in 2004. Cheers --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-03-31 21:27, Marika Konings escribió: Hi All, To provide a little bit of background on the approach and style of this report, it was one of the improvements that came out of the 2004 GNSO review during which the PDP in its current format was conceived. At the time not all Board materials were published so there was no real visibility as to what information was being provided to the ICANN Board. As such, the GNSO decided that in addition to the Board Paper that is prepared by Org, the GNSO Council would accompany the approval of GNSO policy recommendations with a GNSO Council recommendations report to the ICANN Board which would include the information that the Board would typically review in its assessment of GNSO policy recommendations. Hopefully this background is helpful as you further consider updates / edits. Best regards, Marika On 31 Mar 2019, at 21:11, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote: Hello Pam, I certainly think that neither the chronological structure, nor the recommendations-cum-recommendations style is appropriate for other people than the insiders of the process. Since I was not a direct participant I didn't dare to ask for more than a table of contents and a clear statement of the purpose of the document. Otherwise I don't think in this version is going to make the Council and the PDP 3.0 very popular in the community. But I respect the voice of the majority before making more marginal comments. In my view it needs a clear structure and clear international standard english style, to which I can't add much. The PDP members deserve better for their arduous work. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-03-31 18:13, Pam Little escribió: Hi all, I have added more comments and minor edits to the version Ayden circulated earlier. I admit this is the first time I read a GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the Board and it strikes me that the report template might need to be updated. Specifically, what seem missing in this draft report are things like policy goals, policy impact analysis and metrics to measure effectiveness of the new policy. These were recommendations from the Data & Metrics Working Group and the most recent GNSO Review, which were approved by the Council and supposedly fully implemented but neither the EPDP Charter, the EPDP Final Report nor this draft report cover these topics. I would have thought these topic are essential for the Council and the Board when approving any PDP/EPDP final recommendations. I note there are relevant sections (such as 3 and 10) in the draft report but, as currently drafted, Section 3 reads like a restatement of the concerns or positions of certain SGs and Cs while Section 10 does not contain substantive analysis: "3 (An analysis of how the issue(s) would affect each Constituency or Stakeholder Group, including any financial impact on the Constituency or Stakeholder Group) seems to be just a rehash of concerns or positions each SG's/C's .... 10. Impact/implementation considerations from ICANN staff The internal ICANN org implementation team has formed and has begun to review the recommendations to analyze the implementation requirements. ICANN org considers the scope of effort required for this implementation to be significant and extensive. " I welcome others' thoughts. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Sent At:2019 Mar. 30 (Sat.) 21:43 Recipient:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] Recommendations Report on EPDP Hi Caitlin, all- Please find attached some suggested edits to this document. Thanks, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:07 AM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote: Dear Councilors: Attached, please find the draft GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board on the EPDP recommendations for your consideration. Following the customary practice, this report will be added to the Council's 18 April consent agenda, unless there are any comments or concerns with this approach. If you have any proposed edits or comments on the report, please kindly submit them by the document deadline of Monday, 8 April 2018. Thank you. Kind regards, Caitlin -- Caitlin Tubergen Policy Senior Manager - GNSO ICANN _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council