Thanks Cheryl. If others agree, please speak up QUICKLY. If Internet speed was fast, EPDP speed is even faster and we already have one negative message - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001692.html. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On February 17, 2019 8:47:36 PM EST, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote: Alan and Hadia, Thank you for passing this on, from my purely personal perspective, the IPC/BC proposed text amendments to the Final Draft of the EPDP Phase 1 Report, is that they are indeed, as indicated by you Alan, well worthy of receiving ALAC/At-Large support. Firstly, they are it seems to me, in keeping with a few concerns and considerations on some matters raised in your discussions with the CPWG, and also reflecting the views and preferences articulated by the majority of active participants in the WG. They also, in my view, act as enhancements and improvements to the existing Draft Final Text, in the manner in which they seek to ensure greater specificity and clarity about the purpose and expectations of the following Phase 2 work of the EPDP Team, in addition to providing valuable timeline information and guidance to the key actors/stakeholders engaged in and affected by GDPR, in the near and medium term and provide both greater surety and predictability to the Full Consensus outcomes of that work. I would, therefore, encourage the ALAC and the rest of the CPWG / At-Large Community to support your endorsement of this proposed text as 'friendly amendments' (more than actually) to the Final Report... [https://thumbs.about.me/thumbnail/users/c/h/e/cheryl.langdonorr_emailsig.jpg...] <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 10:45, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I think it is safe to say that we fully and strongly support these suggested changes. Any disagreement? Alan From: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com<mailto:margiemilam@fb.com>> To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 17:28:44 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Dear Colleagues- The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...>. The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support. We hope to discuss these items with you this week. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

Justine I strongly disagree not only with the position being taken by BC / IPC and supported by ALAC, but even more so by the manner in which it has been put forward. Please read Matt Serlin’s email (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001692.html )which clearly articulates why the IPC / BC position is so offensive due to the way that it has been communicated. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Date: Monday 18 February 2019 at 08:17 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: ICANN list <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [ALAC] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Alan, At this juncture, since a 'majority' of CPWG (and ALAC?) has opted to support the ALAC Statement that was submitted, I would venture that any effort to clarify or explicitly lends to ALAC's mandate ... consumer protection, trust, cybersecurity etc ... should be supported. Further, I see no inconsistency between the ALAC submitted statement and the amendments submitted by IPC/BC to the EPDP Team Final Report and remain guided by you and Hadia as to the actual details which were discussed by the EPDP and agreed or not agreed vs included in or omitted from the Final Report for whatever reason -- your reply to the "one negative message" refers. * I noted that IPC/BC did not hesitate to say they "cannot support" the Final Report without the 5 amendments being made --- it will be interesting to monitor how these amendments will be dealt with by the EPDP. In short, yes, I fully and strongly support IPC/BC's suggested amendments. Justine Chew ----- On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 10:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Thanks Cheryl. If others agree, please speak up QUICKLY. If Internet speed was fast, EPDP speed is even faster and we already have one negative message - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001692.html. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On February 17, 2019 8:47:36 PM EST, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: Alan and Hadia, Thank you for passing this on, from my purely personal perspective, the IPC/BC proposed text amendments to the Final Draft of the EPDP Phase 1 Report, is that they are indeed, as indicated by you Alan, well worthy of receiving ALAC/At-Large support. Firstly, they are it seems to me, in keeping with a few concerns and considerations on some matters raised in your discussions with the CPWG, and also reflecting the views and preferences articulated by the majority of active participants in the WG. They also, in my view, act as enhancements and improvements to the existing Draft Final Text, in the manner in which they seek to ensure greater specificity and clarity about the purpose and expectations of the following Phase 2 work of the EPDP Team, in addition to providing valuable timeline information and guidance to the key actors/stakeholders engaged in and affected by GDPR, in the near and medium term and provide both greater surety and predictability to the Full Consensus outcomes of that work. I would, therefore, encourage the ALAC and the rest of the CPWG / At-Large Community to support your endorsement of this proposed text as 'friendly amendments' (more than actually) to the Final Report... [Image removed by sender.]<https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> [Image removed by sender.] Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 10:45, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I think it is safe to say that we fully and strongly support these suggested changes. Any disagreement? Alan From: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com<mailto:margiemilam@fb.com>> To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 17:28:44 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Dear Colleagues- The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...>. The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support. We hope to discuss these items with you this week. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Good morning: Regarding the BC/IPC comments, jut received: 1. Recommendation #1, Purpose 2 I do not support the proposed amendment. (a) it permits too much third party interpretation of what those terms mean. (b) that approach has in the past been abused through ‘bulk access’. My reading of Annex F is that bulk access would still be permitted. I disagree. 2. Recommenations #16 and #17 Geographic Distinction. My understanding is that ALAC supports a uniform best practice ICANN privacy policy and practice. Neither the EPDP nor BC/IPC reflect this. BC/IPC would kick that can down the road. ALAC should restate the At Large position. I see no justification for ‘compromise’ here. Regards CW PS: As far as I can see the EPDP report does not contain a summary statement of their [17] Recommendations. Where are they?

On 18 Feb 2019, at 04:46, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Cheryl, Indeed the BC and IPC amendments are in line with what we have been discussing. Below is a summary of their recommendations that I believe most of us previously agreed to We have been discussing that there is no mention to consumer protection or cyber security the proposed edit of recommendation number#1 which speaks about discloser - Purpose 2- suggests deleting "lawful data disclosure requests" and instead spelling out the purposes consumer protection, cybersecurity, intellectual property, or law enforcement. and in all cases it goes without saying that disclosure has to be lawful as it has to be GDPR compliant. Amendments to recommendation # 18 suggests that the registries and registrars should reasonably consider the requests and defines a service level for responses (95% responses within 15 days). Amendments to recommendation #14 add the accredited privacy/proxy to the affiliated and says that the implementation of the Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Consensus Policy must be completed within 90 days after the adoption of the EPDP policy recommendations by the Board. Recommendation #12 provides specificity replacing "some future date to be determined by the implementation review" with 102 days Recommendation #17 speaks about discussing geographic distinction in phase 2 as well as legal vs natural – which we also discussed and considered In addition they support the ALAC comments with regard to accuracy and thick-thin Whois Best Hadia From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 4:41 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Cc: ALAC; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [ALAC] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Thanks Cheryl. If others agree, please speak up QUICKLY. If Internet speed was fast, EPDP speed is even faster and we already have one negative message - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001692.html. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On February 17, 2019 8:47:36 PM EST, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote: Alan and Hadia, Thank you for passing this on, from my purely personal perspective, the IPC/BC proposed text amendments to the Final Draft of the EPDP Phase 1 Report, is that they are indeed, as indicated by you Alan, well worthy of receiving ALAC/At-Large support. Firstly, they are it seems to me, in keeping with a few concerns and considerations on some matters raised in your discussions with the CPWG, and also reflecting the views and preferences articulated by the majority of active participants in the WG. They also, in my view, act as enhancements and improvements to the existing Draft Final Text, in the manner in which they seek to ensure greater specificity and clarity about the purpose and expectations of the following Phase 2 work of the EPDP Team, in addition to providing valuable timeline information and guidance to the key actors/stakeholders engaged in and affected by GDPR, in the near and medium term and provide both greater surety and predictability to the Full Consensus outcomes of that work. I would, therefore, encourage the ALAC and the rest of the CPWG / At-Large Community to support your endorsement of this proposed text as 'friendly amendments' (more than actually) to the Final Report... [https://thumbs.about.me/thumbnail/users/c/h/e/cheryl.langdonorr_emailsig.jpg?_1325540751_01]<https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb> Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 10:45, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I think it is safe to say that we fully and strongly support these suggested changes. Any disagreement? Alan From: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com<mailto:margiemilam@fb.com>> To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 17:28:44 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Dear Colleagues- The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...>. The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support. We hope to discuss these items with you this week. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)