Thanks Jonathan. I have admit, I am a little confused re: the purpose of the advice. Probably a result of being reasonably new to some of these ICANN processes. Not sure what we expect to achieve. Marita On 3/28/2019 12:13 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:

I think those are good process points but unless I misunderstood, the purpose of the advice is to put the community on notice for Phase II, not reopen phase I Jonathan

Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> *Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2019 8:58:45 PM *To:* CPWG *Subject:* [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Drafting an advice to the ICANN board: EPDP final report phase 1 Hi all,

With regard to https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105383443

I expressed earlier that I do not think that contracted parties should be mandated to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis. See rec#16 of the final phase 1 EPDP-report. I was on the CPWG call yesterday, but considering the time constraint I felt it was not the place to touch on the specific issue of (non) geographical distinction again as it is not clear to me yet whether the penholders indeed want to raise this a concern in the advice.

(Btw Even if geographical distinction is mandated, according to rec#10 contracted can still choose to redact data even if the GDPR is not applicable. But that is beside the point here)

Besides me potentially disagreeing with the (part of the) content of a (proposed) advice, I am slightly concerned with regard to the process and how it might be perceived by others. Even when only we stress the importance of a Unified Access Model (UAM) and that we want a clear distinction to be made by contracted parties between natural and legal persons, both of which I can agree with, these topics are explicitly to be covered by phase 2. The UAM model is a no brainer and meant to be one of the main end-products of phase 2. And Rec# 17 in the phase 1 end-report is very clear on the natural vs legal distinction that needs to be resolved.

Also:

- We had plenty of opportunities to raise our concerns in the EPDP deliberations themselves, I’m sure Hadia and Alan did a great job; - Our concerns are included in our statement in the phase 1 final report that the board will take note of; - We reiterated these in the recently shared GAC-ALAC statement

And the final report of phase 1 says on page 148, Annex

'Note the BC / IPC minority statement. All other groups support the Final Report.’

I am sure all groups had to make compromises to reach consensus and support the report. I do not think it would look good if we would be perceived, with an advice to the board, as attempting to open up the report and cherry pick recommendations we like and ask the board not to follow up on those we disagree with.

thanks, Bastiaan

***  Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

I agree with both Jonathan and Bastiaan. We should not be seen trying to reopen Phase One discussions. Holly

On Mar 29, 2019, at 3:13 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

I think those are good process points but unless I misunderstood, the purpose of the advice is to put the community on notice for Phase II, not reopen phase I Jonathan

Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 8:58:45 PM To: CPWG Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Drafting an advice to the ICANN board: EPDP final report phase 1

Hi all,

With regard to https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105383443 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105383443>

I expressed earlier that I do not think that contracted parties should be mandated to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis. See rec#16 of the final phase 1 EPDP-report. I was on the CPWG call yesterday, but considering the time constraint I felt it was not the place to touch on the specific issue of (non) geographical distinction again as it is not clear to me yet whether the penholders indeed want to raise this a concern in the advice.

(Btw Even if geographical distinction is mandated, according to rec#10 contracted can still choose to redact data even if the GDPR is not applicable. But that is beside the point here)

Besides me potentially disagreeing with the (part of the) content of a (proposed) advice, I am slightly concerned with regard to the process and how it might be perceived by others. Even when only we stress the importance of a Unified Access Model (UAM) and that we want a clear distinction to be made by contracted parties between natural and legal persons, both of which I can agree with, these topics are explicitly to be covered by phase 2. The UAM model is a no brainer and meant to be one of the main end-products of phase 2. And Rec# 17 in the phase 1 end-report is very clear on the natural vs legal distinction that needs to be resolved.

Also:

- We had plenty of opportunities to raise our concerns in the EPDP deliberations themselves, I’m sure Hadia and Alan did a great job; - Our concerns are included in our statement in the phase 1 final report that the board will take note of; - We reiterated these in the recently shared GAC-ALAC statement

And the final report of phase 1 says on page 148, Annex

'Note the BC / IPC minority statement. All other groups support the Final Report.’

I am sure all groups had to make compromises to reach consensus and support the report. I do not think it would look good if we would be perceived, with an advice to the board, as attempting to open up the report and cherry pick recommendations we like and ask the board not to follow up on those we disagree with.

thanks, Bastiaan

*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer <https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer> ***

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

To be clear Bastiaan, I support geographic differentiation and to date the ALAC has as well. But the Board is not going to make such a decision. All we can say is that we believe that the EPDP should debate it on its merits, something that it has not done yet. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On March 29, 2019 3:45:12 PM GMT+09:00, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote: Thanks a lot, Alan - while my concerns with regard to the ALAC submitting an advice, and how that might be perceived, are not related to rec#16 as such, I very much appreciate your comments. I still disagree with mandating contracted parties to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, for reasons I mentioned before and I’d be happy to seek (legal) expertise from elsewhere to support my position. If the advice however, without taking a position on the topic itself, refers to However, the discussion clearly said that the issue WOULD be raised in Phase 2. That is the recollection of the ALAC and SSAC as well as the EPDP Chair who all expected geographic differentiation to be on the Phase 2 agenda. I will definitely support that. thanks again, regards Bastiaan *** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer *** On 29 Mar 2019, at 04:45, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: In reply to Bastiaan, Marita, Jonathan and Holly, the situation was not quite as Bastiaan described. The ALAC and others had consistently taken the position that contracted parties should be required to do geographic differentiation in line with the stated ICANN intent of keeping WHOIS information as available as possible given full compliance with GDPR. Although we were not unique in this position, I note that this was very clearly the position taken by SSAC in light of the benefits related to cyber-security issues. The issue was consistently deferred as not being necessary for resolution in phase 1, a position that we accepted. At one point there was an e-mail sent to the EPDP list by a contracted party rep that proposed simply accepting no geographic differentiation. There were no objections and the issue was not raised during a teleconference. It only came to light late in the process when the final draft report was being reviewed. The ALAC and others including the SSAC strenuously objected as clearly noted in our comments on the draft (attached). Ultimately, we (ALAC, SSAC and others) agreed to accept the wording in recommendation 16 because debating the wording further would not allow us to issue the report as scheduled. However, the discussion clearly said that the issue WOULD be raised in Phase 2. That is the recollection of the ALAC and SSAC as well as the EPDP Chair who all expected geographic differentiation to be on the Phase 2 agenda. When staff produced the Phase 2 outline in Kobe, the item was missing because "that is what Rec 16 said", notwithstanding the verbal agreement to continue to discuss the issue in Phase 2 (and this was accepted by the current acting chair Rafik Dammak).e The statement will be drafted in two versions for discussion by the ALAC. Alan At 28/03/2019 11:58 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote: Hi all, With regard to https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105383443 I expressed earlier that I do not think that contracted parties should be mandated to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis. See rec#16 of the final phase 1 EPDP-report. I was on the CPWG call yesterday, but considering the time constraint I felt it was not the place to touch on the specific issue of (non) geographical distinction again as it is not clear to me yet whether the penholders indeed want to raise this a concern in the advice. (Btw Even if geographical distinction is mandated, according to rec#10 contracted can still choose to redact data even if the GDPR is not applicable. But that is beside the point here) Besides me potentially disagreeing with the (part of the) content of a (proposed) advice, I am slightly concerned with regard to the process and how it might be perceived by others. Even when only we stress the importance of a Unified Access Model (UAM) and that we want a clear distinction to be made by contracted parties between natural and legal persons, both of which I can agree with, these topics are explicitly to be covered by phase 2. The UAM model is a no brainer and meant to be one of the main end-products of phase 2. And Rec# 17 in the phase 1 end-report is very clear on the natural vs legal distinction that needs to be resolved. Also: - We had plenty of opportunities to raise our concerns in the EPDP deliberations themselves, I’m sure Hadia and Alan did a great job; - Our concerns are included in our statement in the phase 1 final report that the board will take note of; - We reiterated these in the recently shared GAC-ALAC statement And the final report of phase 1 says on page 148, Annex 'Note the BC / IPC minority statement. All other groups support the Final Report.’ I am sure all groups had to make compromises to reach consensus and support the report. I do not think it would look good if we would be perceived, with an advice to the board, as attempting to open up the report and cherry pick recommendations we like and ask the board not to follow up on those we disagree with. thanks, Bastiaan *** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer *** ________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg ________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <ALAC-Statement-EPDP_Phase_1_Final_Report-20190211.pdf>